MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244513728 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12004

Abstracts of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Cancer Cachexia Conference, Montreal, Canada, 26–28 September 2014

2015· article· en· W4244513728 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vickie E. Baracos, Maurizio Muscaritoli, Zaira Aversa, Filippo Rossi Fanelli, Rashami Awasthi, Chelsia Gillis, Sender Liberman, Barry Stein, Patrick Charlebois, F. Carli, Sultan Ahmad, D. Chiche, Yu‐Chou Tseng, Samuel K. Kulp, I‐Lu Lai, En‐Chi Hsu, Wei He, David Frankhouser, Pearlly S. Yan, Xiaokui Mo, Mark Bloomston, Gregory B. Lesinski, Guido Marcucci, Denis C. Guttridge, Tanios Bekaii‐Saab, Ching‐Shih Chen, Ahi Al Haddad, Eman K. Al‐Azwani, Y Mahamoud, F. Safi, Haytham El Salhat, Josef Málek, Thomas E. Adrian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalMcGill UniversityConcordia UniversityUniversity of AlbertaNEOMED Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCachexiaGerontologyMedicineHistoryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer cachexia contributes to poor prognosis through progressive depletion of the body's energy and protein reserves; research is revealing the impact of the quantitly of these reserves on survival.Our group has exploitated computed tomography (CT) images to study body composition in cancer patients.We argue that CT taken for the purposes of diagnosis and routine follow-up can be used to derive clinically useful information on skeletal muscle and fat amount and distribution.Population-based data sets have been analyzed, revealing wide variation in individual proportions of fat and muscle (Prado et al.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1920.038

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and MuscleSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207