MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088293391 · doi:10.1002/cncr.24343

Conclusions and reflections

2009· article· en· W2088293391 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Denis, Mary Gospodarowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramMedicineOutcome (game theory)Clinical trialDiseaseRisk stratificationIntensive care medicineCancerOncologyInternal medicineMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Validated prognostic factors are an integral part of any cancer diagnosis. The available proliferation of new markers and randomized clinical trial results leads to a complex decision making looking for optimal treatment and outcome results. Advanced mathematic models have been developed to weigh each specific prognostic factor into a single outcome number in nomograms modeled for specific predictive accuracy in key phases of the treated history of the disease. Despite this progress, it is important to realize that the results are an outcome stratification for groups rather than for the individual patient. It is clear that in the tumor prognosis, host and environmental factors need to be evaluated before any clinical decision is made. Cancer 2009;115(13 suppl):3160-2. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207