MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108592277 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbq010

Online resources of cancer data: barriers, benefits and lessons

2010· review· en· W2108592277 on OpenAlex
Emanuela Gadaleta, Nicholas R. Lemoine, Claude Chelala

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCancer Research UKOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchNational Cancer InstituteNational Cancer Research InstituteCancer Research Institute
KeywordsInteroperabilityComputer scienceData sharingResource (disambiguation)Data scienceKey (lock)SustainabilityKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebComputer securityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With advances in high-throughput techniques, the volume of data generated has resulted in the creation of a plethora of resources for the cancer research community. However, a key factor in the utility, sustainability and future use of a novel resource lies in its ability to allow for data sharing and to be interoperable with major international cancer research efforts. This article will introduce some of these efforts, the interoperable cancer data-mining resources and repositories, from a user-perspective. Some of the considerations to be addressed when building interoperable, sustainable cancer resources will be discussed with case studies-hoping this will prove useful for researchers designing their own cancer databases.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.293 · 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