MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119497332 · doi:10.1517/17530059.1.1.137

MESOMARK<sup>®</sup><i>in vitro</i>diagnostic test for mesothelioma

2007· article· en· W2119497332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhong-Qian Li, Thorsten Verch, W. Jeffrey Allard

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFujirebio US
KeywordsMesothelinMesotheliomaMedicineTest (biology)OncologyPathologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesothelioma is a highly progressive tumor with a poor prognosis. In this article, the authors give a thorough introduction into and evaluation of the MESOMARK(®) in vitro test - the only blood test for the management of patients with mesothelioma approved by the US FDA. In Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the test is approved or licensed for the measurement of the soluble mesothelin, also termed as soluble mesothelin-related peptides. In the US, it is approved for the monitoring of patients with epithelioid and biphasic malignant mesothelioma.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Medical DiagnosticsSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207