MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Signatures épidémiologiques et biais de surveillance du cancer

2024· article· fr· W4400344306 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Tancredi, B. van der Linden, Laura C. Rosella, Arnaud Chioléro

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Médicale Suisse · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentrePublic Health OntarioTrillium Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverdiagnosisEpidemiologyCancerIncidence (geometry)Lung cancerPopulationEpidemiology of cancerMedicineEnvironmental healthOncologyPathologyInternal medicineMathematicsBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surveillance bias occurs when variations in cancer incidence are the result of changes in screening or diagnostic practices rather than increases in the true occurrence of cancer. This bias is linked to the issue of overdiagnosis and can be apprehended by looking at epidemiological signatures of cancer. We explain the concept of epidemiological signatures using the examples of melanoma and of lung and prostate cancer. Accounting for surveillance bias is particularly important for assessing the true burden of cancer and for accurately communicating cancer information to the population and decision-makers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueRevue Médicale SuisseSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207