Ofrecemos al sector todas las herramientas para que siga creciendo y evolucionando
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) is an international, multicenter-controlled study. The organization includes an Executive Committee, Steering Committee, 6 Central Units, 32 Clinical Centers, and a Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Scientifically, the COMS consists of (1) a randomized trial of patients with medium choroidal melanoma treated with enucleation versus iodine-125 plaque irradiation, (2) a randomized trial of patients with large choroidal melanoma treated with enucleation versus preenucleation external beam irradiation and enucleation, and (3) a prospective observational study of patients with small choroidal melanoma to determine whether a randomized trial of treatment is appropriate. In design and conduct of the COMS, special consideration is given to biostatistics and sample size considerations, iodine-125 plaque irradiation of choroidal melanoma, and coordinated ocular melanoma research. Recruitment is in progress. However, the pool of eligible patients is limited and the COMS needs the continued support and cooperation of ophthalmologists throughout the United States and Canada.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it