MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990772450 · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30673-4

Sebaceous carcinoma: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

2019· review· en· W2990772450 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua L. Owen, Nour Kibbi, Brandon Worley, Ryan C. Kelm, Jordan V. Wang, Christopher A. Barker, Ramona Behshad, Christopher K. Bichakjian, Diana Bolotin, Jeremy S. Bordeaux, Scott H. Bradshaw, Todd V. Cartee, Sunandana Chandra, Nancy L. Cho, Jennifer N. Choi, Hakan Demirci, Daniel B. Eisen, Bita Esmaeli, Nicholas Golda, Conway C. Huang, Sherrif F. Ibrahim, Shang Jiang, John Kim, Timothy M. Kuzel, Stephen Y. Lai, Naomi Lawrence, Erica H. Lee, Justin J. Leitenberger, Ian A. Maher, Margaret Mann, Kira Minkis, Bharat B. Mittal, Kishwer S. Nehal, Isaac Neuhaus, David Ozog, Brian Petersen, Veronica Rotemberg, Sandeep Samant, Faramarz H. Samie, Sabah Servaes, Carol L. Shields, Thuzar M. Shin, Joseph F. Sobanko, Ally‐Khan Somani, William G. Stebbins, J. Regan Thomas, Valencia D. Thomas, David T. Tse, Abigail H. Waldman, Michael K. Wong, Yaohui G. Xu, Siegrid S. Yu, Nathalie C. Zeitouni, Tim Ramsay, Kelly A. Reynolds, Emily Poon, Murad Alam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapySebaceous carcinomaCarcinomaBiopsyLymph nodeEyelidPhysical examinationDermatologyMedical diagnosisSurgeryRadiologyPathology

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 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.663
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.059 · 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
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

Citations205
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet OncologySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207