MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936210037 · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.217

EUS versus magnetic resonance imaging in staging rectal adenocarcinoma: a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2936210037 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Chan, Raxitkumar Patel, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Lehana Thabane, Mohammad Yaghoobi

Bibliographic record

VenueGastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
FundersMedtronic
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysisRadiologyReceiver operating characteristicConfidence intervalColorectal cancerDiagnostic accuracyProspective cohort studyGold standard (test)Nuclear medicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.261 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations61
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGastrointestinal EndoscopySame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207