MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058198376 · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2012.03.001

The importance of exposure rate on odds ratios by cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption for esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in the Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium

2012· review· en· W2058198376 on OpenAlexafffund
Jay H. Lubin, Michael B. Cook, Nirmala Pandeya, Thomas L. Vaughan, Christian C. Abnet, Carol Giffen, Penelope M. Webb, Liam Murray, Alan G. Casson, Harvey A. Risch, Weimin Ye, Farin Kamangar, Leslie Bernstein, Linda Sharp, Olof Nyrén, Marilie D. Gammon, Douglas A. Corley, Anna H. Wu, Línda Morris Brown, Wong‐Ho Chow, Mary H. Ward, Neal D. Freedman, David C. Whiteman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian Research CouncilNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesMedical Research CouncilU.S. Public Health ServiceCentral Agricultural University, ImphalCancer Council QueenslandChief Scientist OfficeNova Scotia Health Research FoundationNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioAdenocarcinomaEsophagusGastroenterologyBody mass indexInternal medicineEsophageal squamous cell carcinomaEsophageal cancerEsophageal NeoplasmConfidence intervalCancer

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations76
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCancer EpidemiologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207