MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610869261 · doi:10.1016/j.jor.2017.03.014

Orthopaedic tumors: What problems are we solving, and are universities and major medical centers doing enough?

2017· article· en· W2610869261 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Mediouni, Daniel Schlatterer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Medical physicsClinical trialIntensive care medicinePathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little has been published about the complexity of orthopaedic tumors compared to others tumors. The current study in the literature treated this problem in terms of classification, surgical intervention and impact on the patient. In this article, factors risks of tumors will be we identified. A strategy based on three dimensional simulations will be explained in order to improve the clinical trials.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.020
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of OrthopaedicsSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207