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

Beyond Lung Cancer

2013· article· en· W2331965247 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Chiles, Narinder Paul

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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.

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic ImagingSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207