The United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study: objectives, materials and methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".