Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background "Faced with mortality, scientific knowledge can provide only an ounce of certainty: Yes, you will die.But one wants a full pound of certainty, and that is not on offer."-Paul Kalanithi [1].Cancer, to patients is more than just a diagnosis, and their lived experiences in the journey go far beyond the cleverly invented interventions, medications, and investigations.One would think that clinical outcome predictions, like weather forecast, should become more and more accurate as the event being predicted draws closer, but this is often not the case.A full pound of certainty, in Paul Kalanithi's words, could guide patients in prioritising treatment options, putting affairs in order, going on a cruise this summer, or delaying it till next year [1].It could guide patient relatives in deciding whether to go home tonight or remain by the bedside to see mum take her last breath.In this article, we discuss prognosis disclosure in general terms, its ethical aspects, challenges, and possible solutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".