RE: BLADDER CANCER FACTS: ACCURACY OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyLetters to the Editor/Errata1 Oct 2004RE: BLADDER CANCER FACTS: ACCURACY OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNETis correction ofBladder Cancer Facts: Accuracy of Information on the Internet C.T. Lee, C.A. Smith, J.M. Hall, W.B. Waters, and J.S. Biermann C.T. LeeC.T. Lee More articles by this author , C.A. SmithC.A. Smith More articles by this author , J.M. HallJ.M. Hall More articles by this author , W.B. WatersW.B. Waters More articles by this author , and J.S. BiermannJ.S. Biermann More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000139588.81672.dcAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "RE: BLADDER CANCER FACTS: ACCURACY OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET." The Journal of Urology, 172(4 Part 1), p. 1544 References 1 Fox, S., Rainie, L., Horrigan, J., Lenhart, A., Spooner, T., Burke, M. et al: The online health care revolution: how the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Health_Report.pdf. Accessed December 2003 Google Scholar 2 Weissenberger, C., Beranek-Chiu, J., Jonassen, S., Müller, O., Neumann, M. and Witucki, G.: Patterns of internet use among patients with prostate cancer. Presented at 10th annual meeting of European Public Health Association. Dresden, Germany, November 28–30, 2002 Google Scholar 3 Frydman G.: Needs of the patient, 2001. Available at http://www.ihealthcoalition.org. Accessed December 2003 Google Scholar 4 Gaisser A.: Cancer telephone hotline at the German Cancer Research Center at Heidelberg, 2003. Information in Oncology presented at conference. Freiburg, Germany, November 7–8, 2003 Google Scholar 5 : Prostate cancer: how aware is the public?. Br J Urol1998; 82: 43. Google Scholar 6 Mercer G.: “Walk A Mile 2001” Newfoundland & Labrador. Available at http://www.cpcn.org/arch_july30_2001.htm. Accessed February 2003 Google Scholar Department of Radiology, Division of Radiotherapy (Weissenberger)Department of Surgery, Division of Urology and Andrology, University Hospital of Freiburg, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany (Schultze-Seemann)© 2004 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of Urology9 Nov 2018Bladder Cancer Facts: Accuracy of Information on the Internet Volume 172Issue 4 Part 1October 2004Page: 1544 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2004 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information C.T. Lee More articles by this author C.A. Smith More articles by this author J.M. Hall More articles by this author W.B. Waters More articles by this author J.S. Biermann More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.230 | 0.214 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".