MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visualization and Analysis of Breast Cancer Data

2018· article· en· W2948367142 on OpenAlexaff
Sonal Bajaj, Waqar Haque

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDashboardConsistency (knowledge bases)ScalabilityData scienceProcess (computing)Data visualizationVisualizationBreast cancerResource (disambiguation)World Wide WebData miningCancerDatabaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer care institutions and registries have collected large volumes of cancer data in various formats. Unfortunately, these repositories are not easily accessible and the stored formats are difficult to analyze. The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program is a premier source for cancer statistics in the United States. Though the data is accessible, it lacks consistency and generating reports from such data is a labor-intensive process. We propose an end-to-end process through which such data can be cleansed, integrated and presented in the form of interactive dashboards with drill-down and drill-through reporting capabilities. This provides a comprehensible view of over forty years of data consisting of over one million records with provisions to slice this data along several dimensions. The hidden patterns and trends could be utilized towards improving treatment plans, data-driven resource allocation, and better patient care. The dashboard is extensible, scalable, and updates in real-time with new data.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207