MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006814561 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105277

Data on systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence on the association between perineal use of talc powder and risk of ovarian cancer

2020· article· en· W3006814561 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Kadry Taher, N. Farhat, Nataliya A. Karyakina, Nataliya Shilnikova, Siva Ramoju, Christopher A. Gravel, Kannan Krishnan, Donald R. Mattison, Shi Wu Wen, Daniel Krewski

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalMcGill UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMeta-analysisOvarian cancerTalcMedicineSystematic reviewGrey literatureMEDLINEGynecologyOncologyCancerInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes data from a systematic review and meta-analysis [1] conducted to identify and evaluate published peer reviewed evidence on the association between perineal use of talc powder and risk of ovarian cancer. These data were collected from multiple electronic bibliographic databases, as well as from grey literature sources, without applying time, language or other filters. A meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively assess the ovarian cancer risk in relation to talc use and other potential risk factors.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.032
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.001 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207