MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760451204 · doi:10.1097/grf.0000000000000317

Cost-effectiveness of Ovarian Cancer Prevention Strategies

2017· article· en· W2760451204 on OpenAlexaff
Janice S. Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerContext (archaeology)BRCA mutationCancer preventionCancerOncologyDiseaseGynecologyPopulationCost effectivenessInternal medicineEnvironmental healthRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian cancer remains to be the most lethal of all gynecologic malignancies. There is no effective screening test proven to reduce the mortality associated with this disease. Costs of treating ovarian cancer are substantial and among the highest of all cancer types. Therefore, it is essential to pursue strategies to prevent ovarian cancer that are cost-effective in the context of our health care system. There are 2 subgroups of women for whom ovarian cancer prevention strategies have been evaluated for effectiveness and costs: (1) general population at risk, and (2) BRCA mutation carriers with a high lifetime risk.

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 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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207