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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) were successful to identify genetic factors robustly associated with lung cancer. This review aims to synthesize the literature in this field and accelerate the translation of GWAS discoveries into results that are closer to clinical applications. A chronologic presentation of published GWAS on lung cancer susceptibility, survival, and response to treatment is presented. The most important results are tabulated to provide a concise overview in one read. GWAS have reported 45 lung cancer susceptibility loci with varying strength of evidence and highlighted suspected causal genes at each locus. Some genetic risk loci have been refined to more homogeneous subgroups of lung cancer patients in terms of histologic subtypes, smoking status, gender, and ethnicity. Overall, these discoveries are an important step for future development of new therapeutic targets and biomarkers to personalize and improve the quality of care for patients. GWAS results are on the edge of offering new tools for targeted screening in high-risk individuals, but more research is needed if GWAS are to pay off the investment. Complementary genomic datasets and functional studies are needed to refine the underlying molecular mechanisms of lung cancer preliminarily revealed by GWAS and reach results that are medically actionable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it