MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2165413853 · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(12)70425-4

Menarche, menopause, and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis, including 118 964 women with breast cancer from 117 epidemiological studies

2012· review· en· W2165413853 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Oncology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Cancer InstituteNorwegian Institute of Public HealthUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillInstituto Nacional De Salud PúblicaInstitut Gustave-RoussyWuhan UniversitySyddansk UniversitetUniversidad de Costa RicaUniversitetet i BergenOdense UniversitetshospitalMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterUniversità degli Studi di PadovaUniversiteit MaastrichtImperial College LondonWorld Health OrganizationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUniversity College LondonCancer Research UKLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLoma Linda UniversityUniversity of OtagoShanghai Institute Of Planned Parenthood ResearchDeutsches KrebsforschungszentrumUniversity of PittsburghNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensKarolinska InstitutetUniversidad de ChileInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of MinnesotaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoUniversity of PennsylvaniaVanderbilt UniversityUniversity of TorontoNational University of SingaporeKaiser Permanente
KeywordsMenarcheBreast cancerEpidemiologyMenopauseMedicineObstetricsGynecologyCancerDemographyInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.031
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.587
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.076 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1,159
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Oncology→Same topicCancer Risks and Factors→French-language works237,207→