MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808321990 · doi:10.1016/j.gore.2018.06.007

Advancing clinical research globally: Cervical cancer research network from Mexico

2018· review· en· W2808321990 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan J. Ager, Dolores Gallardo‐Rincón, David Cantú de León, Adriana Chávez-Blanco, Linus Chuang, Alfonso Dueñas‐González, Eva María Gómez-García, Roberto Jerez, Anuja Jhingran, Mary McCormack, Linda Mileshkin, Carlos Pérez‐Plasencia, Marie Plante, Andrés Poveda, David K. Gaffney

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic Oncology Reports · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervical cancerGynecologic cancerCervixClinical trialCancerLatin AmericansClinical researchGynecologyGerontologyFamily medicineInternal medicineOvarian cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women with 85% of the mortality burden occurring in less-developed regions of the world. The Cervix Cancer Research Network (CCRN) was founded by the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) with a mission to improve outcomes in cervix cancer by increasing access to high-quality clinical trials worldwide, with particular attention to less-developed, underrepresented sites. The CCRN held its second international educational symposium in Mexico City with ninety participants from fifteen Latin America countries in January 2017. The purpose of this symposium was to advance knowledge in cervix cancer therapy, promote recruitment to CCRN clinical trials, and to identify relevant future CCRN clinical trial concepts that could improve global care standards for women with cervical cancer.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic Oncology ReportsSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207