MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214550380 · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.02.009

Applying utility values in cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer screening: A review of methods

2022· review· en· W4214550380 on OpenAlexaff
Preston Ngo, Sonya Cressman, S. Behar Harpaz, Deme Karikios, Karen Canfell, Marianne Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueLung Cancer · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerQuality-adjusted life yearQuality of life (healthcare)Lung cancer screeningCost effectivenessIntensive care medicineCost–benefit analysisBaseline (sea)Actuarial scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Oncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueLung CancerSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207