MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793741280 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30087-1

The economic case for investing in cancer control

2018· article· en· W2793741280 on OpenAlexaff
Rifat Atun, Hellen Gelband, Prabhat Jha

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineCancer preventionHealth careBusinessCancerEconomic growthEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite clear evidence of a historically large and growing cancer burden, cancer services have not generally been prioritised in low-income and lower-middle-income countries by national governments or external funders. The many reasons include the urgency of other calls on health budgets, but the lack of a coherent economic argument for a range of cancer interventions—from prevention to treatment to palliation—has contributed to the inertia.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207