MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224234918 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2022.26780

EMPOWER Retinoblastoma: Engaging Patient Partners in Solving the Top 10 Priorities for Eye Cancer Research in Canada

2022· article· en· W4224234918 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ivana Ristevski, Jill Robert, Richelle Baddeliyanage, Roxanne Noronha, Maxwell J. Gelkopf, Kaitlyn Flegg, Leslie Low, Jennifer K. E. Steeves, Bruce Crooks, Brenda L. Gallie, Helen Dimaras

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityYork UniversityCanadian Patient Safety InstituteWestern UniversitySickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinoblastomaAction (physics)Action researchMedicinePublic relationsPsychologyOptometryNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While it is recognized that research priorities should reflect and integrate the perspectives and needs of patients along with those of health professionals and researchers, it remains challenging to actualize such priorities into tangible research projects. Targeted dissemination is required to catalyze research on these priorities. To create awareness of and inspire action toward actualizing the top 10 retinoblastoma research priorities in Canada, Canadian Retinoblastoma Research Advisory Board (CRRAB) members developed a wide range of dissemination tools and processes. These resources, co-produced with patients, were instrumental to CRRAB sharing the top 10 priorities internationally to mobilize action toward solving them.

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 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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0030.020
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.354 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207