MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783635714 · doi:10.1111/imj.13670

Current lung cancer screening practice amongst general practitioners in Western Australia: a cross‐sectional study

2018· article· en· W2783635714 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Manners, Helen Wilcox, Annette McWilliams, Francesco Lo Piccolo, Helena Liira, Fraser Brims

Bibliographic record

VenueInternal Medicine Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancer screeningCross-sectional studyFamily medicineLung cancerOdds ratioComputed tomographyRadiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lung cancer screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is recommended in the USA and Canada for high-risk smokers but not in Australia. We administered a cross-sectional survey to Western Australian general practitioners (GP). The majority (64/93, 69%) reported requesting a screening chest X-ray (42/93, 45%) and/or LDCT (38/93, 41%) in the past year. LDCT screening was more common if the GP had received education from radiology practices (odds ratio (OR) 2.81, P = 0.03) or if they believed screening is funded by the Medical Benefits Scheme (OR 3.57, P = 0.02). Lung cancer screening with LDCT is occurring outside a coordinated programme, contrary to Australian guidelines.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.408 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternal Medicine JournalSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207