MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152246378 · doi:10.3121/cmr.2011.1020.ps1-22

PS1-22: Tumor--VDW Table Structure Dictated by National Agency Standards

2011· article· en· W2152246378 on OpenAlex
Richard Krajenta, Lois Lamerato, Karen Wells

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine & Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Federation of Humane Societies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTable (database)Agency (philosophy)MedicineData scienceLibrary scienceOperations researchComputer scienceData miningEngineeringEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) was established in 1987 as a collaborative organization for cancer registries, government agencies, professional associations and private groups. NAACCR develops and promotes uniform data standards, provides education and training, certifies population-based registries, processes and publishes data from central registries and promotes the use of cancer surveillance data for research, public health and patient care. Cancer registries in the US include the national central registries, NCI-SEER and CDC-NPCR, individual State registries and hospital-based (care providerbased) registries. The Cancer Research Network (CRN) has adopted NAACCR data standards to define the Virtual Data Warehouse tumor registry table (VDW-TR). However, since the inception of the VDW-TR, there have been many version of NAACCR in effect. Aims/Methods: VDW-TR needed to have similar and merge-able data for multi-site projects. Data standards set by NAACCR are optimal for construction of this resource as they are designed to collect tumor data centrally from multiple data sources. The standards establish processes for data exchange and record layout in addition to coordinating input from sponsoring organizations, such as AJCC and NCI. NAACCR is also responsible for incorporating new items of interest as the data used to characterize cancers evolve. We describe how these changes were incorporated into the VDW-TR. Results: AJCC Collaborative Stage I (CS-1), applicable to cases diagnosed beginning with January 2004, brought many changes to data and data formats required for staging. These changes were not incorporated by the VDW tumor file in 2004 due to the lack of ownership and oversight. Discrepancies eventually developed between VDW data dictionary and NAACCR causing data value decay. ICDO-2 histology lists were expanded and recoded in ICDO-3, providing additional challenges, along with other rules-based changes in tumor classification. CS-1 also mandated addition of anatomic site specific factors. Many additional changes occurred in 2010 with CS-2. The specifications incorporated in our current VDW-TR address all of these data changes. Conclusion: The VDW has to adopt NAACCR changes as they are adapted to remain current with all standards. We are now sensitized to monitor and adjust for significant future changes in NAACCR.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.355 · 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