MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surgical management of lung cancer

2000· article· en· W2083932466 on OpenAlexaff
J. Dussek

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Imaging · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerLungCancerIntensive care medicineRadiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First and foremost we must, as a profession, become more ''carcinoma-minded'' in regard to the lungs'. No-one would disagree, but this statement was made by RC Brock, later Lord Brock, nearly 60 years ago in the British Medical Journal [1] . Carcinoma of the bronchus still remains the most common cancer in men and the second most common cancer in women. In England there are approximately 32 000 deaths from lung cancer per annum [2] . The incidence of lung cancer in males appears at last to be reducing but there is little real evidence of that happening in females. In some groups it is still rising and in Glasgow has even equalled that of breast cancer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ImagingSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207