MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106369794 · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2020.10.127

Lung Screening Benefits and Challenges: A Review of The Data and Outline for Implementation

2020· review· en· W3106369794 on OpenAlex
Jacob Sands, Martin C. Tammemägi, S. Couraud, David Baldwin, Andrea Borondy Kitts, David F. Yankelevitz, Jennifer Lewis, Fred Grannis, Hans‐Ulrich Kauczor, Oyunbileg von Stackelberg, Lecia V. Sequist, Ugo Pastorino, Brady J. McKee

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Oncology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersBayer FundMerck Sharp and DohmeJazz PharmaceuticalsTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteInternational Association for the Study of Lung CancerRocheNational Academy of MedicineMerckTakeda Pharmaceuticals InternationalBayerAmerican College of RadiologyAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbAmerican Thoracic SocietyPfizerBoehringer IngelheimAmgenAmerican Cancer SocietyAmerican Lung Association
KeywordsOverdiagnosisMedicineLung cancerLung cancer screeningIntensive care medicinePopulationCancerFamily medicineEnvironmental healthOncologyPathologyInternal medicine

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.314 · 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