Cancer Informatics in 2017: A New Beginning and a Bright Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize significant research contributions on cancer informatics published in 2017. METHODS: An extensive search using PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and manual review was conducted to identify the scientific contributions published in 2017 that address topics in cancer informatics. The selection process comprised three steps: (i) 15 candidate best papers were first selected by the two section editors, (ii) external reviewers from internationally renowned research teams reviewed each candidate best paper, and (iii) the final selection of three best papers was conducted by the editorial board of the Yearbook. RESULTS: Results: The three selected best papers present studies addressing many facets of cancer informatics, with immediate applicability in the research and clinical domains. CONCLUSION: Cancer informatics is a broad and vigorous subfield of biomedical informatics. Strides in knowledge management, crowdsourcing, and visualization are especially notable in 2017.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".