MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012372919 · doi:10.1038/gim.2013.113

Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!

2013· review· en· W2012372919 on OpenAlexaff
Wylie Burke, Armand H. Matheny Antommaria, Robin L. Bennett, Jeffrey R. Botkin, Ellen Wright Clayton, Gail E. Henderson, Ingrid A. Holm, Gail P. Jarvik, Muin J. Khoury, Bartha Maria Knoppers, Nancy A. Press, Lainie Friedman Ross, Mark A. Rothstein, Howard M. Saal, Wendy R. Uhlmann, Benjamin S. Wilfond, Susan M. Wolf, Ron Zimmern

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics in Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsExome sequencingExomeMedical geneticsPenetranceGenomicsPsychological interventionPersonal genomicsGenetic testingWhole genome sequencingMedicineGeneticsBiologyGenomeGenePhenotypePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0120.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations288
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGenetics in MedicineSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207