MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995123342 · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2019.12.107

PD-L1 Testing for Lung Cancer in 2019: Perspective From the IASLC Pathology Committee

2019· review· en· W2995123342 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie Lantuéjoul, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Wendy A. Cooper, Nicolas Girard, Fred R. Hirsch, Anja C. Roden, Fernando López‐Ríos, Deepali Jain, Teh‐Ying Chou, Noriko Motoi, Keith M. Kerr, Yasushi Yatabe, Élisabeth Brambilla, John Longshore, Mauro Papotti, Lynette M. Sholl, Erik Thunnissen, Natasha Rekhtman, Alain Borczuk, Lukas Bubendorf, Yuko Minami, Mary Beth Beasley, Johan Botling, Gang Chen, Jin-Haeng Chung, Sanja Đačić, David Hwang, Dongmei Lin, André L. Moreira, Andrew G. Nicholson, Masayuki Noguchi, Giuseppe Pelosi, Claudia Poleri, William D. Travis, Akihiko Yoshida, Jillian B. Daigneault, Ignacio I. Wistuba, Mari Mino–Kenudson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersMerck Sharp and DohmeGenentechTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.Meso Scale DiagnosticsAbbVieChugai PharmaceuticalRocheEMD SeronoNovartisMedImmuneAgilent TechnologiesGlaxoSmithKlineMerckBayerBayer CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaBoehringer IngelheimAmgenPfizer
KeywordsMedicineCompanion diagnosticLung cancerImmunohistochemistryOncologyCancerClinical trialPathologyInternal medicine

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.413 · 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

Citations345
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207