The Impact of Big Data Research on Practice, Policy, and Cancer Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of "big data" research-the aggregation and analysis of biologic, clinical, administrative, and other data sources to drive new advances in biomedical knowledge-has been embraced by the cancer research enterprise. Although much of the conversation has concentrated on the amalgamation of basic biologic data (e.g., genomics, metabolomics, tumor tissue), new opportunities to extend potential contributions of big data to clinical practice and policy abound. This article examines these opportunities through discussion of three major data sources: aggregated clinical trial data, administrative data (including insurance claims data), and data from electronic health records. We will discuss the benefits of data use to answer key oncology practice and policy research questions, along with limitations inherent in these complex data sources. Finally, the article will discuss overarching themes across data types and offer next steps for the research, practice, and policy communities. The use of multiple sources of big data has the promise of improving knowledge and providing more accurate data for clinicians and policy decision makers. In the future, optimization of machine learning may allow for current limitations of big data analyses to be attenuated, thereby resulting in improved patient care and outcomes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".