MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255252333 · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.01.032

Corrigendum to “Pathological chemotherapy response score is prognostic in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data” Gynecol. Oncol. 154 (2019) 441–448

2021· review· en· W4255252333 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul A. Cohen, Aime Powell, Steffen Böhm, C. Blake Gilks, Colin J.R. Stewart, Tarek Meniawy, Max Bulsara, Stefanie Avril, Eleanor C. Brockbank, Tjalling Bosse, Gustavo Rubino de Azevedo Focchi, Raji Ganesan, Rosalind Glasspool, Brooke E. Howitt, Hyun Soo Kim, Jung‐Yun Lee, Nhu D. Le, Michelle Lockley, Ranjit Manchanda, Trupti Mandalia, W. Glenn McCluggage, Iain A. McNeish, Divya Midha, Radhika Srinivasan, Yun Yi Tan, Rachael van der Griend, Mayu Yunokawa, Gian Franco Zannoni, Naveena Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic Oncology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKingdomFamily medicineLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Authors acknowledge the original list of individuals in The HGSC CRS Collaborative Network outlined in Appendix A. Supplementary Data was incomplete. The complete list is outlined below, with the previously omitted name bolded. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Simi Aggarwal (Tata Medical Center, Kolkata, India), Holger Bronger (Technische Universität München, Germany), Elizabeth B Brown (Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Devon, United Kingdom), Martin Buck (Bendat Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subiaco, Australia), Syed A.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2330.049

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic OncologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207