MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173669651 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.79145

The authors reply to: “Antihypertensives and skin cancer” and “Association between thiazide diuretics and skin cancer: still nebulous”

2021· letter· en· W3173669651 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Aaron M. Drucker, An‐Wen Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenin-Angiotensin System Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThiazideContext (archaeology)MedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineDiuretic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Dawes[1][1] and Dr. Parmar[2][2] for their thoughtful responses to our study.[3][3] We agree that when interpreting and applying our findings to clinical practice, they must be considered in each individual patient’s clinical context. Thiazides are effective, inexpensive

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicRenin-Angiotensin System StudiesFrench-language works237,207