MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942873537 · doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000458

International Anal Neoplasia Society Guidelines for the Practice of Digital Anal Rectal Examination

2019· review· en· W2942873537 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsBerger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRectal examinationQuality assuranceMedical physicsPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop recommended techniques and quality assurance metrics for the practice of Digital Anal Rectal Examination (DARE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The International Anal Neoplasia Society undertook a literature review and, using the AGREE II technique, developed guidelines for performing DARE. RESULTS: A consensus was formed regarding the optimum conditions and characteristics of DARE. Several Quality Assurance metrics were developed. CONCLUSIONS: Digital Anal Rectal Examination is a cheap and potentially universally available technique, which has the potential to facilitate the early diagnosis of anal cancers, when they are most amenable to treatment. These guidelines provide a basis for teaching the technique and may be used as for evaluation research.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.297 · 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