MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393166419 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102758

184P A framework to support implementation of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening: Research methodology and opportunities for impact

2024· article· en· W4393166419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Holly C. Wilcox, E. Wheeler, Suzanne Wait, D. Bancroft, Jody E. Hooper, C L Melson

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputed tomographyLung cancerMedicineLung cancer screeningMedical physicsRadiologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lung Cancer Policy Network, a global multi-stakeholder initiative of experts in lung cancer, has developed a framework to inform implementation of LDCT screening. The framework and associated online toolkit aim to support those involved in the planning and delivery of LDCT screening programmes around the world.

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)0.164
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1640.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0070.015
Scholarly communication0.0180.015
Open science0.0080.015
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO OpenSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207