MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132981975 · doi:10.14740/wjon842e

Application of Bayesian Approach in Cancer Clinical Trial

2014· review· en· W2132981975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bhattacharjee

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityMedicineBayesian inferenceBayesian experimental designStatement (logic)Clinical trialBayesian statisticsInferenceMachine learningMedical physicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of Bayesian approach in clinical trials becomes more useful over classical method. It is beneficial from design to analysis phase. The straight forward statement is possible to obtain through Bayesian about the drug treatment effect. Complex computational problems are simple to handle with Bayesian techniques. The technique is only feasible to performing presence of prior information of the data. The inference is possible to establish through posterior estimates. However, some limitations are present in this method. The objective of this work was to explore the several merits and demerits of Bayesian approach in cancer research. The review of the technique will be helpful for the clinical researcher involved in the oncology to explore the limitation and power of Bayesian techniques.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.753
GPT teacher head0.698
Teacher spread0.054 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207