MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392771157 · doi:10.3399/bjgp24x736677

Is the digital rectal exam any good as a prostate cancer screening test?

2024· article· en· W4392771157 on OpenAlex
Michael Kirby, Samuel WD Merriel, Oluwabunmi Olajide, Alexander Norman, Nikhil Vasdev, Vishwanath Hanchanale, Michelle Cain, Malcolm Wilkinson, Harley Stephens, Deborah Victor, William Kinnaird, Alison Tree, Amarnath Challapalli, Amy Rylance

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRectal examinationTest (biology)ProstateMedical physicsProstate cancerGynecologyGeneral surgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is no shortage of references in popular culture to the prostate examination, with many a laugh built on the punchline of the finger up the bum. Interestingly, while cervical, breast, or bowel screening share barriers to uptake around the intimacy of the examination, ‘ick-factor’, or cultural taboos, they have never become comedy tropes — reflecting the uniquely emasculating perception of the rectal examination.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.301 · 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