MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2004166600 · doi:10.1136/bmj.f6959

India must use research evidence to tackle high burden of cervical cancer, experts say

2013· article· en· W2004166600 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanjeet Bagcchi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical cancerMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Incidence (geometry)CancerEnvironmental healthGeographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

India needs immediately to translate its science research findings into effective policies to reduce the country’s huge burden of cervical cancer, researchers have urged.1 Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women aged 15 or older in India. One in 53 Indian women in their lifetime develops cervical cancer, double the one in 100 in developed countries.2 India carries a quarter of the global burden of cervical cancer, and it is projected that at the current incidence India’s annual burden of new cases of cervical cancer would be 225 000 by 2025. “We are recommending implementation of …

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0200.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→