Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this workshop was to examine possible strategies for increasing participation by adolescent and young adult cancer patients in clinical trials. Three key established issues set the framework for this discussion: 1) In the United States, individuals in the 15-40 age group are less likely than either children or older adults to be referred to a comprehensive cancer center. 2) Enrollment in therapeutic clinical trials is unacceptably low among adolescent and young adult patients everywhere this has been studied, including United States, Canada, and United Kingdom. 3) Cancers that occur in patients in this age group with particular frequency (notably malignant lymphomas and bone tumors) have relatively long intervals from symptom onset to diagnosis (POG 9082). This may reflect both distinct biologic features of these diseases and a real gap in health care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.128 | 0.055 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".