MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226189987

Evaluating Disparities in Proton Radiation Therapy Use in AHOD1331, a Contemporary Children's Oncology Group Trial for Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma

2021· editorial· en· W4226189987 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond B. Mailhot Vega, Sharon M. Castellino, Qinglin Pei, Susan K. Parsons, Kenneth B. Roberts, David Hodgson, Anne-Marie Charpentier, Thomas J. FitzGerald, Sandy K. Kessel, Frank G. Keller, Kara M. Kelly, Bradford S. Hoppe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsRadiation oncologyHodgkin lymphomaMedicineStage (stratigraphy)OncologyLymphomaInternal medicineRadiation therapyProton therapyMedical physicsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The indications for proton radiation therapy carry the strongest evidence in pediatric cancers. In a recently published letter, Bitterman et al reviewed factors associated with receipt of proton radiation therapy in patients enrolled in Children's Oncology Group (COG) solid tumor and CNS tumor trials. They demonstrated that Black children were less likely to receive this treatment than non-Hispanic white patients, a disparity that persisted when controlling for other demographic and clinical variables. We strongly commend them for their work, as addressing racism and infrastructural barriers to care requires its identification.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association)Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207