MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619003201 · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0084-1

Refining the accuracy of validated target identification through coding variant fine-mapping in type 2 diabetes

2018· review· en· W2619003201 on OpenAlex

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

VenueNature Genetics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation CentreUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreHelmholtz Zentrum MünchenKorea Centers for Disease Control and PreventionKorea National Institute of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesMedical Research CouncilMünchner Zentrum für GesundheitswissenschaftenErasmus Medisch CentrumGenentechNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCenters for Disease Control and PreventionRegeneron PharmaceuticalsNational Institutes of HealthHjartaverndNovo Nordisk FondenEli Lilly and CompanyLundbeckfondenZonMwBritish Heart FoundationEuropean CommissionSteno Diabetes Center CopenhagenWellcome TrustBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute on AgingNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesSanofiGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerIncyteYale University
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyIdentification (biology)Coding (social sciences)Refining (metallurgy)Type 2 diabetesGeneticsDiabetes mellitusStatisticsEndocrinologyMathematics

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.285 · 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