MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612811682 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.011

Setting Research Priorities for Kidney Cancer

2017· editorial· en· W2612811682 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer M. Jones, Jaimin R. Bhatt, Jonathan Avery, Andreas Laupacis, Katherine Cowan, Naveen S. Basappa, Joan Basiuk, Christina Canil, Sohaib Al-Asaaed, Daniel Y.C. Heng, Lori Wood, Dawn Stacey, Christian Kollmannsberger, Michael A.S. Jewett

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British ColumbiaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Kidney Disease NetworkMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of AlbertaSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineGeneral partnershipKidney cancerContext (archaeology)CancerKidney diseaseIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining disease-specific research priorities in cancer can facilitate better allocation of limited resources. Involving patients and caregivers as well as expert clinicians in this process is of value. We undertook this approach for kidney cancer as an example. The Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership that identified ten research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. These are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0280.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean UrologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207