MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409448100 · doi:10.5306/wjco.v7.i1.54

Historical review of the causes of cancer

2016· review· en· W2409448100 on OpenAlexaff
Clarke Brian Blackadar

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerMedicineInternational agencyVirusBreast cancerCauses of cancerOncovirusEnvironmental healthImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early 1900s, numerous seminal publications reported that high rates of cancer occurred in certain occupations. During this period, work with infectious agents produced only meager results which seemed irrelevant to humans. Then in the 1980s ground breaking evidence began to emerge that a variety of viruses also cause cancer in humans. There is now sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for human T-cell lymphotrophic virus, human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human papillomavirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and human herpes virus 8 according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Many other causes of cancer have also been identified by the IARC, which include: Sunlight, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, hormones, alcohol, parasites, fungi, bacteria, salted fish, wood dust, and herbs. The World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research have determined additional causes of cancer, which include beta carotene, red meat, processed meats, low fibre diets, not breast feeding, obesity, increased adult height and sedentary lifestyles. In brief, a historical review of the discoveries of the causes of human cancer is presented with extended discussions of the difficulties encountered in identifying viral causes of cancer.

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)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.442
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.150 · 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
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

Citations377
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207