MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142181526 · doi:10.2471/blt.07.050112

Revisting wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years

2008· review· en· W2142181526 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anne Andermann

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNewborn screeningDiseaseHarmMedicinePrenatal diagnosisAgency (philosophy)PediatricsIntensive care medicinePsychologyPathologyBiologyGeneticsPregnancySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost 40 years ago, WHO commissioned a report on screening from James Maxwell Glover Wilson, then Principal Medical Officer at the Ministry of Health in London, England, and Gunner Jungner, then Chief of the Clinical Chemistry Department of Sahlgren’s Hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. The report1, published in 1968, was entitled: Principles and practice of screening for disease and it has since become a public health classic.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations903
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the World Health OrganizationSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207