MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416275929 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djw031

Current and Evolving Methods to Visualize Biological Data in Cancer Research

2016· review· en· W2416275929 on OpenAlexaff
Puey Ling Chia, Craig Gedye, Paul C. Boutros, Paul Wheatley‐Price, Thomas John

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity of MelbourneNational Health and Medical Research CouncilInternational Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
KeywordsEvent dataVisualizationData scienceClinical trialOncologyEvent (particle physics)Medical physicsMedicineComputer scienceComputational biologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the measurements of clinical outcomes for cancer treatments have become diverse and complex, there remains a need for clear, easily interpreted representations of patients' experiences. With oncology trials increasingly reporting non-time-to-event outcomes, data visualization has evolved to incorporate parameters such as responses to therapy, duration and degree of response, and novel representations of underlying tumor biology. We review both commonly used and newly developed methods to display outcomes in oncology, with a focus on those that have evolved to represent complex datasets.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207