MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111303343 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.201085

The efficacy and safety of sunscreen use for the prevention of skin cancer

2020· review· en· W3111303343 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Megan Sander, Michael Sander, Toni Burbidge, Jennifer Beecker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkin cancerDermatologyUltraviolet radiationMedicineUltravioletSun exposureSun protectionCancerSunscreening AgentsUltraviolet aSun protection factorInternal medicineChemistryMaterials scienceOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KEY POINTS In Canada, more than 80 000 cases of skin cancer are diagnosed every year.[1][1] Because exposure to ultraviolet radiation is estimated to be associated with 80%–90% of skin cancers, the use of sunscreen — which blocks ultraviolet radiation — is promoted as an important means of

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations184
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207