Transitioning adolescent and young adult cancer care research out of its adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transitioning adolescent and young adult cancer care research out of its adolescence Adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology research is steadily but perceptibly entering a more mature phase.Adolescent and Young Adult-specific services have existed for almost 30 years, embedded in England since the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published guidance in 2005 directing where and how AYAaged 16-24 years were to be treated and cared for.Similar progress is being made with services across the world, where the lower age is considered to be in the region of 13 years at diagnosis and the upper age ranging from 29 to 39 years depending on jurisdiction (Husson, Manten-Horst, Manten-Horst, & Graaf, 2016;Saloustros et al., 2017;Stark et al., 2016).Somewhat later than the development of specialist services was the need to evaluate the outcomes associated with such services, subsequently there has been an increase in high quality, programmatic research to evaluate and guide services (Parsons et al.,
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 | 0.107 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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.
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".