MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915579267 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz057

Value assessment frameworks in oncology: championing concordance through shared standards

2019· editorial· en· W2915579267 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Monica M. Bertagnolli, Josep Tabernero

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceCancerScopusFamily medicineMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As rapidly evolving tools under the constant rigorous review and development by both ASCO and ESMO’s expert task forces, the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score (ASCO-NHB) and the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) were both launched in 2015 to assess the relative benefit of cancer therapies and were recently compared [1].

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)0.685
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.676
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6850.676
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0180.011
Science and technology studies0.0120.057
Scholarly communication0.0440.045
Open science0.0190.056
Research integrity0.0220.053
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207