MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176750 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-969-9:1

Breast Tissue Banking : Collection, Handling, Storage, and Release of Tissue for Breast Cancer Research

2006· article· en· W3176750 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda Snell, Peter H. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTissue bankAccreditationBreast cancerComputer scienceResource (disambiguation)MedicineCancerInternal medicinePathologyMedical educationComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A "tumor bank" provides a resource tool that can efficiently address the limitations of other tissue resources, such as clinical archives and research study collections. A tumor bank allows formal accreditation of ethics and security procedures, and through a dedicated management, processing, storage, retrieval, and release structure, can provide selected and preassembled material and data for research and discovery. This chapter describes the design, operating protocols, and methods for processing, storage, and release of the Manitoba Breast Tumor Bank.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207