MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mining Association Rules in the BCCA Liver Cancer Data Set

2015· article· en· W38781171 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fabiola Pinheiro, Mu-Hsing Kuo, Alex Thomo, Jeff Barnett

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation rule learningComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Association (psychology)Liver cancerData miningCancerMedicineInternal medicineProgramming languagePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to apply data mining techniques to determine factors that are commonly associated with liver cancer incidence, using an anonymized data set of 6064 patients from the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA). The association rules indicate that in BC the patient demographic factors associated with increased liver cancer include: age ranges 60-69, male gender, and geographic location in the Greater Vancouver area. The main factors associated with decreased survivability in BC were being male and in the age range 70-79. In the Yukon, being male and in the age range 60-69 was the main factor associated with both increased incidence of liver cancer and decreased survivability.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.536
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.041 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207