MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041070362 · doi:10.3747/co.27.6679

The Challenge of Creating Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Management of Peritoneal Malignancies

2020· letter· en· W3041070362 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gregory Knapp, Lloyd A. Mack

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapyPeritoneumPeritoneal carcinomatosisIntensive care medicineIntraperitoneal chemotherapyMultidisciplinary approachClinical PracticeEvidence-based practiceCytoreductive surgeryCancerOncologyOvarian cancerSurgeryPathologyInternal medicineAlternative medicineColorectal cancerFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of primary and secondary malignancies of the peritoneum continues to pose a challenge to modern, multidisciplinary cancer care.[...]

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)0.045
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.209
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0420.057
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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 head0.493
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.004 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207