MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991386396 · doi:10.3399/bjgp15x684661

Assessing risk and improving survival in lymphoma

2015· letter· en· W1991386396 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Fields, David Wrench

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphomaIntensive care medicineData scienceComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymphoma represents the sixth most common form of cancer in the UK, with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) representing 4% and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) <1% of cases; over 13 000 lymphoma cases are diagnosed annually 1,2 and its incidence, in particular NHL, has continued to rise over recent decades. There are now more than 40 recognised lymphoma subtypes and this contributes to its heterogeneity of clinical presentation, ranging from subtle signs and symptoms to acutely unwell cases with endorgan compromise.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of General PracticeSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207