MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324253949 · doi:10.1097/nan.0b013e3182659950

Building a Clinical Trial Process in Oncology

2012· review· en· W2324253949 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infusion Nursing · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nurses Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialOncology nursingHealth careMEDLINEIntensive care medicineClinical OncologyCancer treatmentMedical physicsOncologyNursingCancerInternal medicineNurse education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical trials offer patients the opportunity to participate in medical advancement, while providing access to the newest therapies, often at no additional cost. This is especially true in oncology, where rapid acceleration of research has created many promising treatment options for cancer patients. Administration of a clinical trial requires extensive education and collaboration to provide the highest quality of health care within a rapidly evolving environment. As an integral part of this team, the infusion nurse in the oncology setting is in a unique position to enhance patient safety and protection through effective use of clinical knowledge and patient assessment and advocacy skills.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.188
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.188
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.864
GPT teacher head0.747
Teacher spread0.117 · 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