MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003747453 · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2020.01.016

New Approaches to SCLC Therapy: From the Laboratory to the Clinic

2020· review· en· W3003747453 on OpenAlexaff
John T. Poirier, Julie George, Taofeek K. Owonikoko, Anton Berns, Élisabeth Brambilla, Lauren A. Byers, David P. Carbone, Huanhuan Joyce Chen, Camilla L. Christensen, Caroline Dive, Anna F. Farago, Ramaswamy Govindan, Christine L. Hann, Matthew D. Hellmann, Leora Horn, Jane E. Johnson, Young Seok Ju, Sumin Kang, Mark A. Krasnow, James Lee, Se‐Hoon Lee, Jonathan M. Lehman, Benjamin H. Lok, Christine M. Lovly, David MacPherson, David G. McFadden, John D. Minna, Matthew G. Oser, Keunchil Park, Yves Pommier, Vito Quaranta, Neal Ready, Julien Sage, Giorgio V. Scagliotti, Martin L. Sos, William D. Travis, Christopher R. Vakoc, Sarah J. Wait, Ignacio I. Wistuba, Kwok‐Kin Wong, Hua Zhang, Jillian B. Daigneault, Jacinta Wiens, Charles M. Rudin, Trudy G. Oliver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Oncology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsNational Cancer InstituteNational Health and Medical Research CouncilDaiichi Sankyo EuropeAgios PharmaceuticalsKarolinska InstitutetTakeda OncologyEMD SeronoIpsenPharmaMarAstellas PharmaMerckKyowa Hakko KirinDaiichi-SankyoSyndax PharmaceuticalsCancer Research UKAstraZenecaInternational Association for the Study of Lung CancerGenentechANGLEBayer FundMeso Scale DiagnosticsAstex PharmaceuticalsTG TherapeuticsAeglea BioTherapeuticsPfizer PharmaceuticalsMarshfield Clinic Research FoundationMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterMerck KGaANational Institutes of HealthRegeneron PharmaceuticalsVictorian Cancer AgencyIncyteMedical Research CouncilUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterAbbVieCelgeneNovartisFoundation MedicineGlaxoSmithKlineEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbG1 TherapeuticsLung Cancer Research FoundationCold Spring Harbor LaboratoryRocheAstellas Pharma USAmgenAriad PharmaceuticalsBoehringer IngelheimPfizer
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineLung cancerClinical trialImmunotherapyDiseaseOncologyCancerInternal 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations176
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic OncologySame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207