MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387847520 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljad398

Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) Priority Setting Initiative ranks the top 10 evidence uncertainties for Merkel cell carcinoma

2023· article· en· W4387847520 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anabel Bergeron, Carolyn Nessim, Omer Kleiner, Rachael Manion, Jan Dutz, Anie Philip, An‐Wen Chan, Yuka Asai, Kathleen Barnard, John Beaty, Leslee Beaty, Beverly Bell-Rowbotham, Ryan DeCoste, Aaron M. Drucker, Julie Fradette, Lucie Germain, Robert Gniadecki, Karen Holfeld, Yuanshen Huang, Mélanie Laurin, Ivan V. Litvinov, Sarvesh Logsetty, Trish MacNeil, Morris F. Manolson, Roxana Mititelu, P. Régine Mydlarski, Vincent Piguet, Girish M. Shah, Debbie Ward, Mary Zawadaski, Youwen Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPolyomavirus and related diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoBC Children's HospitalMcGill UniversityCanadian Arthritis Patient AllianceUniversity of British ColumbiaSKiN HealthWomen's College HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMerkel cell carcinomaAllianceSkin cancerMedicineDermatologyMerkel cellFamily medicineCarcinomaPolitical sciencePathologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) completed a national Priority Setting Initiative to identify the top 10 knowledge uncertainties for Merkel cell carcinoma based on the James Lind Alliance principles. Overall, 48 patients, clinicians and researchers provided input in two survey rounds and one workshop. The top 10 list of research priorities will help the skin research community, funders and policymakers to address key knowledge uncertainties for the benefit of patients with Merkel cell carcinoma.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicPolyomavirus and related diseasesFrench-language works237,207