MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566473850 · doi:10.1515/em-2015-0024

Perfect is the Enemy of Good: Going to the War on Cancer with Less Evidence than We Could Have

2015· article· en· W2566473850 on OpenAlex
Eduardo L. Franco

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiologic Methods · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversaryPerspective (graphical)Breast cancerPoliticsPublic healthBalance (ability)Randomized controlled trialHealth careCancerMedicinePublic relationsActuarial sciencePsychologyPublic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceComputer securityNursingLawSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Randomized controlled trials have been the mainstay of high-level evidence for or against cancer screening strategies. However, simple proof of reduction in cause-specific mortality is not enough for policymaking, particularly in the last 10 years. Today’s clinical and public health guidelines take into account the balance of risks to benefits from screening, costs, utilities, the political risk of inaction, the societal tolerance to risk, healthcare providers’ preferences, client choices, and other imponderables or subjective variables that cannot be captured or addressed via epidemiologic studies. This commentary uses the above perspective in discussing Miettinen’s arguments concerning the science of breast cancer screening.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.610
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.062 · 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