MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088359655 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31553-1

Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial

2020· article· en· W3088359655 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Parker, Noel W. Clarke, Adrian Cook, Howard Kynaston, Charles Catton, William Cross, John Logue, Wendy R. Parulekar, Heather Payne, Raj Persad, Holly Pickering, Fred Saad, Juliette Anderson, Amit Bahl, David Bottomley, Klaus Brasso, Rohit Chahal, Peter Cooke, Ben Eddy, Stephanie Gibbs, Chee Goh, Sandeep Gujral, Catherine Heath, Alastair Henderson, Ramasamy Jaganathan, Henrik Jakobsen, Nicholas D. James, S.K. Sundaram, Kathryn Lees, J.F. Lester, Henriette Lindberg, Julian Money‐Kyrle, Stephen Morris, Joe M. O’Sullivan, Peter Ostler, Lisa Owen, Prashant Patel, A. Pope, R. Popert, Rakesh Raman, Martin Andreas Røder, Ian Sayers, Matthew Simms, Jim Wilson, Anjali Zarkar, Mahesh Parmar, Matthew R. Sydes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalQueen's UniversityUniversity Health Network
FundersMedical Research CouncilCancer Research UKInstitute of Cancer ResearchCanadian Cancer SocietyNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUK Research and Innovation
KeywordsProstatectomyMedicineUrologyRadiation therapyRadicalRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineProstate cancerCancerChemistry

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations403
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207