MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004140946 · doi:10.1001/amajethics.2020.93

When Is a Suboptimal Approach to Cancer Screening Better Than None?

2020· article· en· W3004140946 on OpenAlexaff
Ramy Sedhom, Bishal Gyawali

Bibliographic record

VenueThe AMA Journal of Ethic · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerMedicineCancer screeningComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer care in low-resource regions is complex, as resources and infrastructure for cancer care and prevention are limited. Mortality rates for breast cancer in particular are higher in regions where treatments are unavailable, unaffordable, or cost ineffective. Clinical breast examination is a reasonable screening approach, although its effects on mortality have not yet been shown. This article recommends focusing on early detection of symptomatic disease (ie, downstaging) and treatment of early detected breast cancers with potentially curative strategies.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.209
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.209
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AMA Journal of EthicSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207