MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2215910533

Applying the Principles of Disease Screening to Prostate Cancer

2014· article· en· W2215910533 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Paiva, Mary H. H. Ensom

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineDiseasePsychological interventionProstate cancer screeningCancerIntensive care medicineProstate-specific antigenNursingInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite prostate cancer screening programs being in place for almost two decades, their effectiveness in reducing mortality continues to be contentiously debated, resulting in polarized recommendations by various interest groups. Pharmacists are relied upon to critically appraise various types of literature, including non-drug interventions, such as disease screening programs.  It is important to understand both the purpose and principles of screening to effectively apply the literature.  We review the purpose and eight core attributes of effective screening programs with prostate cancer as the model disease stat e .

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.602
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.032 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207