MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2232773455 · doi:10.1054/bjoc.1999.1045

The United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study: objectives, materials and methods

2000· article· en· W2232773455 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation TrustHospital for Sick ChildrenGreat Ormond Street Hospital for ChildrenTrent UniversityUniversity of SouthamptonMiddlesex UniversityQueen Mary University of LondonNational Research Program for BiopharmaceuticalsUniversity of OxfordAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsResidenceMedicineIonizing radiationChildhood cancerCancerPopulationPediatricsDemographyDiseaseEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePathologyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation into the possible causes of childhood cancer has been carried out throughout England, Scotland and Wales over the period 1991-1998. All children known to be suffering from one or other type of the disease over periods of 4-5 years have been included, and control children matched for sex, age and area of residence have been selected at random from population registers. Information about both groups of children (with and without cancer) has been obtained from parental questionnaires, general practitioners' and hospital records, and from measurement of the extent of exposure to radon gas, terrestrial gamma radiation, and electric and magnetic fields. Samples of blood have also been obtained from the affected children and their parents and stored. Altogether 3,838 children with cancer, including 1,736 with leukaemia, and 7,629 unaffected children have been studied. Detailed accounts are given of the nature of the information obtained in sections describing the general methodology of the study, the measurement of exposure to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, the classification of solid tumours and leukaemias, and the biological material available for genetic analysis.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.359 · 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