MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080938585 · doi:10.3121/cmr.2012.1100.ps1-25

PS1-25: Cervical Cancer Testing and Follow-up in Four Managed Care Plans, 1998-2007

2012· article· en· W2080938585 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila Weinmann, Erin E. Masterson, Heather T. Gold, Aruna Kamineni, Anne Williams, Natasha K. Stout, Azadeh Stark, Thalia S. Field, Kathryn Richert-Boe

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine & Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth planMedicinePilgrimHealth careCervical cancerCancer preventionFamily medicineCancer screeningGerontologyCancerLibrary scienceArchaeologyHistoryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HMORN 2012 -Selected Abstracts (10/151), SAs=5.5% (16/292).One-fifth of survivors (SA=22% (65/290), SA=18% (28/154)) reported volunteering on a regular basis an average of 11 (SOs) to 15 (SAs) hours/week.SAs reported more support from employers than SOs (64% (138/215) vs. 53% (60/113), p<.05), and from co-workers (68% (146/214) vs. 57% (64/112), p<.05).SAs and SOs did not differ in marital status at times of diagnosis or survey.The distribution of marital status shifted between diagnosis and survey: 72% (305/425) were married and 10% (43/425) were widowed at diagnosis; 62% (263/424) were married and 20% (84/424) were widowed at time of survey.No differences were reported by treatment about being forced into retirement.Discussion: Compared to SOs, SAs were more likely to be currently employed, to receive higher rates of support from employers and coworkers, and to volunteer more hours.Perhaps interventions can be developed to allow ostomy survivors to participate more in these functions in their communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.473
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.079 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine & ResearchSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207