The American Society of Clinical Oncology's Efforts to Support Global Cancer Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite much progress in the management of malignant diseases, the number of new cases and cancer-related deaths continues to rise around the world. More than half of new cases occur in economically developing countries, where more than two thirds of cancer deaths are expected. However, implementation of all necessary steps to accomplish the dissemination of state-of-the-art prevention, diagnosis, and management will require increased allocation of resources, and, more importantly, harmonization of the efforts of hundreds of national and international public health agencies, policy-setting bodies, governments, pharmaceutical companies, and philanthropic organizations. More than 30% of the members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) reside and practice outside US borders, and more than half of attendees at all of the scientific congresses and symposia organized by ASCO are international. As cancer has become an increasingly global disease, ASCO has evolved as a global organization. The ASCO Board of Directors currently includes members from France, Brazil, and Canada. In 2013, the ASCO Board of Directors identified a number of strategic priorities for the future. Recognizing the importance of non-US members to the society, their first strategic priority was improving the society's service to non-US members and defining these members' identity in the international oncology community. This article reviews current ASCO activities in the international arena and its future plans in global oncology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".