MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390652292 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljad391

Top 10 research priorities for basal cell carcinoma: results of the Skin Investigation Network of Canada Priority Setting Initiative

2023· article· en· W4390652292 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ilya Shoimer, Omer Kleiner, Rachael Manion, Jan Dutz, Anie Philip, An‐Wen Chan, Yuka Asai, Kathleen Barnard, Rienk De Vries, Ryan DeCoste, Jeanne DesBrisay, Aaron M. Drucker, Julie Fradette, Lucie Germain, Robert Gniadecki, Omar Hasan Ali, Mélanie Laurin, Ivan V. Litvinov, Elizabeth Leach, Sarvesh Logsetty, Barbara Lokach, Jillian Macdonald, Marilynne Madigan, Morris F. Manolson, P. Régine Mydlarski, Brandon Pearsell, Patricia Pearsell, Vincent Piguet, Girish M. Shah, Michaël C.G. Stevens, Debbie Ward, Youwen Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaSKiN HealthWomen's College HospitalMcGill UniversityCanadian Arthritis Patient AllianceUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAllianceBasal cell carcinomaMedicineBasal cellFamily medicinePolitical sciencePathology

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 BCC based on the James Lind Alliance principles. Overall, 91 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 BCC.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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 topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207