MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038195328 · doi:10.1017/s1431927600037545

Detection of Early Cancers by Quantitative Cytology

2000· article· en· W3038195328 on OpenAlexaff
Branko Palcic, David M. Garner, Xiao Rong Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Cervical cancerCytologyCervixUterine cervixGynecologyMalignancyCancerObstetricsPopulationStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicinePathologyCarcinomaBiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It has long been recognized that detecting cancers in their early, non-invasive stage is the best strategy to control malignant diseases. This has been best demonstrated by the example of cancer of the uterine cervix. Before screening for early signs of this malignancy, the prevalence of invasive cancer of the uterine cervix in the developed world was as high as 30 women per 100,000 and the mortality was 12-15 per 100,000 women per year, (all figures represent age standardized data). Since the introduction of cervical screening programs by Pap smears, the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and mortality due to this cancer has fallen dramatically. In British Columbia, for example, where population screening was introduced 50 years ago, the incidence and mortality have decreased several-fold and are at present below 6 and 3 per 100,000, respectively (1,2). It is believed that these figures could be even lower by encouraging more women into the program and by improving both sensitivity and specificity of the cytology.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207