MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164651737 · doi:10.1542/peds.2014-0122g

Increasing the Number of Clinical Trials Available to Adolescents Diagnosed With Cancer

2014· review· en· W2164651737 on OpenAlexaff
Abha A. Gupta, Daniel J. Indelicato

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialIntensive care medicineCancerFamily medicinePathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving access to clinical trials for adolescents with cancer remains an important issue for pediatric health care providers. In this brief report, we highlight barriers to increasing the number of clinical trials as a mechanism for addressing this problem. The challenges discussed include: (1) engaging stakeholders to increase funding; (2) increasing cooperation between clinical trial cooperative groups; and (3) permitting delivery of novel drugs to postpubertal adolescents, in the absence of formal pediatric Phase I evaluation.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207