MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387584726 · doi:10.7554/elife.85680.sa2

Author response: A rapid review of COVID-19’s global impact on breast cancer screening participation rates and volumes from January to December 2020

2023· review· en· W4387584726 on OpenAlexaff
Reagan Lee, Wei Xu, Marshall Dozier, Ruth McQuillan, Evropi Τheodoratou, Jonine D. Figueroa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Breast cancerMedicineOncologyInternal medicineCancerFamily medicineDemographySociologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reduction in breast screening participation volume during COVID-19 that differed by region and healthcare setting was observed in a rapid review of 26 studies globally, suggesting monitoring of screening access by disadvantaged groups to reduce disparities.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.014

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→