MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334383563 · doi:10.5114/pm.2013.39021

Biochemical markers for screening of ovarian cancer

2013· article· en· W2334383563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanna Tkaczuk‐Włach, Małgorzata Sobstyl, Grzegorz Jakiel

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopausal Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvarian cancerMenopauseMedicineCancerGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AMA Tkaczuk-Włach J, Sobstyl M, Jakiel G. Biochemical markers for screening of ovarian cancer. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny. 2013;12(5):442-445. doi:10.5114/pm.2013.39021. APA Tkaczuk-Włach, J., Sobstyl, M., & Jakiel, G. (2013). Biochemical markers for screening of ovarian cancer. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, 12(5), 442-445. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2013.39021 Chicago Tkaczuk-Włach, Joanna, Małgorzata Sobstyl, and Grzegorz Jakiel. 2013. "Biochemical markers for screening of ovarian cancer". Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny 12 (5): 442-445. doi:10.5114/pm.2013.39021. Harvard Tkaczuk-Włach, J., Sobstyl, M., and Jakiel, G. (2013). Biochemical markers for screening of ovarian cancer. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, 12(5), pp.442-445. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2013.39021 MLA Tkaczuk-Włach, Joanna et al. "Biochemical markers for screening of ovarian cancer." Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, vol. 12, no. 5, 2013, pp. 442-445. doi:10.5114/pm.2013.39021. Vancouver Tkaczuk-Włach J, Sobstyl M, Jakiel G. Biochemical markers for screening of ovarian cancer. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny. 2013;12(5):442-445. doi:10.5114/pm.2013.39021.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMenopausal ReviewSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207