MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life in Cancer Clinical Trials: The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Experience

2007· review· en· W2071460680 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Osoba, Andrea Bezjak, Michael Brundage, Joseph L. Pater

Bibliographic record

VenueValue in Health · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityTelus (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineProtocol (science)AttritionCancerAlternative medicineData qualityMissing dataNursingOperations managementInternal medicinePathologyComputer science

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.882
GPT teacher head0.703
Teacher spread0.178 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueValue in HealthSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207