MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736414748 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx152

Lung cancer diagnosis by trained dogs†

2017· article· en· W2736414748 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicPredictive valueArea under the curveLung cancerExhaled airInternal medicineArea under curveGastroenterologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Early lung cancer (LC) diagnosis is key to improve prognosis. We explored here the diagnostic performance of a trained dog to discriminate exhaled gas samples obtained from patients with and patients without LC and healthy controls. METHODS: After appropriate training, we exposed the dog (a 3-year-old cross-breed between a Labrador Retriever and a Pitbull) to 390 samples of exhaled gas collected from 113 individuals (85 patients with LC and 28 controls, which included 11 patients without LC and 17 healthy individuals) for a total of 785 times. RESULTS: The trained dog recognized LC in exhaled gas with a sensitivity of 0.95, a specificity of 0.98, a positive predictive value of 0.95 and a negative predictive value of 0.98. The area under the curve of the receiver-operating characteristics curve was 0.971. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a well-trained dog can detect the presence of LC in exhaled gas samples with an extremely high accuracy.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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