MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891290024

Radon gas-the hidden killer: What is the role of family doctors?

2018· article· en· W2891290024 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Antonio Garcia-Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadonMedicineGuidelineRadon gasHealth hazardLung cancerEnvironmental healthSystematic reviewMEDLINEFamily medicinePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To create awareness of the dangers of radon gas and to provide family physicians with updated, practical information to help educate patients. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: MEDLINE (1950 to February 2013), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 to 2013), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2005 to 2013) were searched using relevant terms. Guidelines, position statements, articles, and original research relevant to radon were selected. MAIN MESSAGE: , and there are cost-effective methods available to reduce radon gas when high levels are found in dwellings. CONCLUSION: Family physicians play a fundamental role in the prevention of radon-related lung cancer by educating their patients, guiding them about specific preventive actions, and advocating on patients' behalf.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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 venuePubMedSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207