MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475981013 · doi:10.1177/1715163516660574

The community pharmacist’s role in cancer screening and prevention

2016· review· en· W2475981013 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anthony James Havlicek, Holly Mansell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistCommunity pharmacistMedicinePharmacyFamily medicineCancer screeningCancer preventionHealth careCancerCommunity pharmacyPopulationMalignancyNursingEnvironmental healthPolitical sciencePathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the Canadian population continues to age, the incidence of cancer is on the rise. To help alleviate the burden malignancy imposes on our health care system, a shift toward early cancer detection is necessary. Pharmacists are well positioned and willing to assume a more active role in cancer surveillance. Patients are receptive to pharmacist involvement and seem to prefer a convenient community pharmacy-based location for screening programs. The community pharmacist's current and potential role in cancer screening and prevention is summarized in this article. A review of screening recommendations and a discussion of opportunities will hopefully inspire pharmacists to consider incorporating malignancy screening initiatives into their practice.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207