MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2097177021

Rebuttal: Should Canadians be offered systematic prostate cancer screening? NO.

2007· article· en· W2097177021 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRebuttalProstate cancer screeningProstate cancerMedicineInformed consentDiseaseAlternative medicineSystematic reviewMEDLINECancerIntensive care medicineFamily medicineProstate-specific antigenInternal medicinePathologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We agree that the reason for systematic screening is the severity of the disease, having an effective method of early detection, and the availability of an early treatment that has a substantial effect on mortality rates. In 2007, however, informed consent to participate in screening is essential.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0510.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.013

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→