MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790681095 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.180076

Whole genome sequencing in the clinic: empowerment or too much information?

2018· letter· en· W2790681095 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Amanda J. Berberich, Rosettia Ho, Robert A. Hegele

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomePersonal genomicsEmpowermentKey (lock)Whole genome sequencingPatient EmpowermentComputational biologyWorld Wide WebData scienceBiologyGeneticsComputer sciencePolitical scienceGeneLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[See related article at [www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.171151][2]][2] KEY POINTS In linked research, Reuter, Scherer and colleagues report on a pilot study of the Personal Genome Project Canada, a comprehensive open-source database that integrates genomic and health data.[1][2] The authors

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207