MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2083732773 · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1131/a

Office of NHS cancer screening programme misrepresents Nordic work in breast screening row

2001· letter· en· W2083732773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter C Gøtzsche

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineBreast cancer screeningFamily medicineBreast screeningWork (physics)CancerMammographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EDITOR—In Mayor's news story in the issue of 27 October the office of the NHS cancer screening programme in the United Kingdom misrepresents our research entirely.1 The office says that our findings of more aggressive treatment of breast cancer among screened women are based on only two studies, classified as poor quality. They are not. Numbers of mastectomies as well as numbers of tumourectomies increase when women are screened. This finding is consistent and is based on all four of the seven screening trials that have published data on this, including the two medium quality trials from Canada and Malmo.2 The office …

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0560.059
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.015

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→