MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519773444 · doi:10.1038/nbt.3674

A community-based model of rapid autopsy in end-stage cancer patients

2016· letter· en· W2519773444 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Alsop, Heather Thorne, Shahneen Sandhu, Anne Hamilton, Christopher Mintoff, Elizabeth L. Christie, Odette Spruyt, Scott Williams, Orla McNally, Linda Mileshkin, Sumitra Ananda, Julene Hallo, Sherene Loi, Clare L. Scott, Peter Savas, Lisa Devereux, Patricia J. O’Brien, Sameera A. Gunawardena, Clare Hampson, Kate Strachan, Rufaro Diana Jaravaza, Victoria Francis, Greg Young, David Ranson, Ravindra Samaranayake, David R. Stevens, Samantha Boyle, Clare G. Fedele, Monique Topp, Gwo‐Yaw Ho, Zhi L. Teo, Renea A. Taylor, Melissa Papargiris, Mitchell G. Lawrence, Hong Wang, Gail P. Risbridger, Nicole M. Haynes, Mikolaj Medon, Ricky W. Johnstone, Eva Vidacs, Gisela Mir Arnau, Ismael A. Vergara, Anthony T. Papenfuss, Grant A. McArthur, Paul Waring, Shirley Carvosso, Christopher Angel, David Gyorki, Benjamin Solomon, Gillian Mitchell, Sue Shanley, Prudence A. Francis, Sarah‐Jane Dawson, Amy Haffenden, Erin Tidball, Mila Volchek, Jan Pyman, Mohammed Madadin, Jodie Leditschke, Stephen Cordner, Mark Shackleton, David D.L. Bowtell

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Biotechnology · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Medical Research CouncilOvarian Cancer AustraliaVictorian Cancer Agency
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)CancerAutopsyMedicineIntensive care medicineOncologyInternal medicineBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations82
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature BiotechnologySame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207