MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239051461 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy192

4th ESO–ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 4)

2018· article· en· W4239051461 on OpenAlexaff
Fátima Cardoso, Elżbieta Senkus, A. Costa, Efthymios Papadopoulos, Matti Aapro, Fabrice André, Nadia Harbeck, B. Aguilar Lopez, C.H. Barrios, Jonas Bergh, Laura Biganzoli, C.B. Boers-Doets, Maria João Cardoso, L.A. Carey, Javier Cortés, Giuseppe Curigliano, Véronique Dièras, Nagi S. El Saghir, Alexandru Eniu, Lesley Fallowfield, P.A. Francis, Karen A. Gelmon, S. Johnston, Bella Kaufman, Smruti Koppikar, I.E. Krop, Musa Mayer, Gertrude Nakigudde, B.V. Offersen, Shinji Ohno, Olivia Pagani, Shani Paluch–Shimon, Frédérique Penault‐Llorca, Aleix Prat, H.S. Rugo, G. W. Sledge, Danielle Spence, Christoph Thomssen, D.A. Vorobiof, B. Xu, Larry Norton, E.P. Winer

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOncologyConsensus conferenceMedical physicsCancerFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) comprises both locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) and metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [1]. Although treatable, MBC remains virtually an incurable disease with a median overall survival (OS) of ∼3years and a 5-year survival of only ∼25% [2, 3]. The MBC Decade Report [2] shows that progress has been slow in terms of improved outcomes, quality of life (QoL), awareness and information regarding ABC. More recently, some studies seem to indicate an improvement in OS, mostly due to advances in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive ABC [4–6].

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0120.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.015

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.331 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1,190
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207