MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948592421 · doi:10.1007/s10552-019-01188-w

Blood transfusion history and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: an InterLymph pooled analysis

2019· article· en· W2948592421 on OpenAlexafffund
James R. Cerhan, Eleanor Kane, Claire M. Vajdic, Martha S. Linet, Alain Monnereau, Leslie Bernstein, Sílvia de Sanjosé, Brian C.‐H. Chiu, John J. Spinelli, Luigino Dal Maso, Yawei Zhang, Beth R. Larrabee, Wendy Cozen, Alexandra Smith, Jacqueline Clavel, Diego Serraino, Tongzhang Zheng, Elizabeth A. Holly, Dennis D. Weisenberger, Susan L. Slager, Paige M. Bracci

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Causes & Control · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesMedical Research CouncilCancer Council NSWInstitut National Du CancerAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of California, San FranciscoNational Institutes of HealthAgence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du TravailBundesamt für StrahlenschutzCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroJosé Carreras Leukämie-StiftungFondation de FranceGeneralitat de CatalunyaBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Cancer InstituteMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaEuropean CommissionHealth Research BoardBlood Cancer UKYale University
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalBlood transfusionBody mass indexDemographyLogistic regressionPopulationSocioeconomic statusInternal medicineEnvironmental health

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCancer Causes & ControlSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207