MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388673072 · doi:10.46747/cfp.6911767

Debunking myths about screening

2023· article· en· W4388673072 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Guylène Thériault, Donna L. Reynolds, Roland Grad, James A. Dickinson, Harminder Singh, Olga Szafran, Viola Antao, Neil R. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaCancerCare ManitobaMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health CentrePublic Health OntarioResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyUniversité du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyComputer scienceHealth screeningData scienceMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Screening is mostly considered a noble and worthwhile effort. Most patients believe screening has no drawbacks and can bring only positive health outcomes.[1][1] As physicians, we know otherwise. This article aims to review and explain some of the challenging myths surrounding screening. The

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207