MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009801310 · doi:10.1517/14712598.4.1.107

18th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Biological Therapy of Cancer

2004· article· en· W2009801310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francesco M. Marincola, Ena Wang, Michael B. Atkins

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Library scienceGerontologyMedicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsFamily medicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 18th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Biological Therapy of Cancer (iSBTc) was held at the Hyatt Regency, Bethesda, MD, close to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus. The meeting was organised on behalf of the society by Neil Berinstein from Aventis Pasteur, Toronto, Canada, Janice P Dutcher from Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center, Bronx, NY and Francesco M Marincola from the NIH, Bethesda, MD. The 2003 meeting included 57 oral presentations and > 100 poster presentations. There were > 800 registrants to the Annual Meeting and the multiple satellite symposia. The iSBTc, formerly the Society of Biological Therapy (SBT), was founded by R Oldham in 1984. Its membership has been rapidly growing of late, with > 500 members at present. The purpose of the iSBTc is to bring together those diverse individuals actively investigating biologic agents and biological response modifiers in the treatment of cancer, including clinicians and basic scientists from industry, government and academia. The President of the Society is Dr Michael B Atkins from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA and the Vice President is Ulrich Keilholz from UKBF, Free University Berlin, Germany.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicCancer Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207