MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396777554 · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2024.04.023

Evidence and choice: The BCLC vision for tailoring clinical decision-making

2024· letter· en· W4396777554 on OpenAlexaff
María Reig, Alejandro Forner, Jordi Rimola, Joana Ferrer, Marta Burrel, Ángeles García‐Criado, Robin Kate Kelley, Peter R. Galle, Vincenzo Mazzaferro, Riad Salem, Bruno Sangro, Amit G. Singal, Arndt Vogel, Josep Fuster, Carmen Ayuso, Jordi Bruix

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hepatology · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesInstituto de Salud Carlos IIINational Institutes of HealthEuropean Association for the Study of the LiverFundación Científica Asociación Española Contra el CáncerEuropean Commission
KeywordsClinical decision makingMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.115
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.370
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1150.370
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.030
Scholarly communication0.0230.024
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0910.101
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HepatologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207