MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041707406 · doi:10.12968/hosp.2000.61.7.1372

Referral guidelines for colorectal cancer: a threat or a challenge?

2000· editorial· en· W2041707406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
MK Baig, CG Marks

Bibliographic record

VenueHospital Medicine · 2000
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerReferralCancerPalliative careDiseaseFamily medicineAllianceQuarter (Canadian coin)Intensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death in England and Wales where there are 30 000 new cases per annum with approximately 40% of patients surviving 5 years. Survival from bowel cancer in the UK is worse than the United States and Europe, perhaps because approximately one quarter of UK patients are diagnosed with incurable disease (Sharp, 1999). Large bowel cancer accounts for more hospital expenditure than any other cancer site and for between 10 and 20% of all palliative care provision (East Riding Cancer Services Alliance, 1998).

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0290.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.012

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHospital MedicineSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207