MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331965247 · doi:10.1097/rti.0000000000000052

Beyond Lung Cancer

2013· article· en· W2331965247 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 Thoracic Imaging · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerLung cancer screeningMalignancyCause of deathPopulationCancerIntensive care medicineDiseaseLungCoronary artery diseaseRespiratory diseaseThorax (insect anatomy)RadiologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-dose computed tomography screening in older patients with a heavy-smoking history can be viewed as an opportunity to screen for smoking-related illnesses and not just for lung cancer. Within the National Lung Screening Trial, 24.1% of all deaths were attributed to lung cancer, but there were significant competing causes of mortality in this patient population. Cardiovascular illness caused 24.8% of deaths. Other neoplasms were listed as the cause of death in 22.3%, and respiratory illness was the cause of death in 10.4%. All of these illnesses might be attributed to smoking. Low-dose computed tomography of the thorax may provide information about these diseases, which could be used to guide therapeutic intervention and, hopefully, alter the courses of these diseases. Information about coronary artery calcification, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and potential extrapulmonary malignancy should be provided in the report of the screening examination. This must be balanced against the risk of the burden of false-positive findings and the costs, both psychological and financial, associated with additional investigative evaluations.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.351 · 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