MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404600357 · doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2024.11.010

Climate Therapy: Sustainability Solutions for Breast Cancer Care in the Anthropocene Era

2024· review· en· W4404600357 on OpenAlexaff
Séamus O’Reilly, Emer Lynch, E. Shelley Hwang, M. J. Brown, T. O’Donovan, Maeve Hennessy, Geraldine McGinty, Aisling Barry, Catherine Weadick, Roelof van Leeuwen, Matthijs van de Poll, Giuseppe Curigliano, Martin J. O’Sullivan, Alexandra Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Breast Cancer · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineHealth careAnthropocenePovertyClimate changeSustainabilityCancerEconomic growthEnvironmental ethicsEcologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is the greatest threat to human existence. Currently it impacts breast cancer care by disrupting treatment, by food poverty and economic hardship and through fossil fuel pollution which increases breast cancer incidence. These impacts are greatest in those already experiencing deprivation. However, healthcare (including breast cancer care) is not an innocent bystander in climate change. The carbon emissions of healthcare are equivalent to the continent of Africa with 1.5 billion people. Like all other enterprises healthcare has an obligation to move to net zero carbon emissions. Previously conducted studies of healthcare professionals have highlighted the role of guidance documents to facilitate climate engagement by them. This prompted the formation of an interdisciplinary group to review the intersection points between breast cancer care and planetary health. A solution tree of sustainable solutions for practicing clinicians is proposed which can be integrated into daily clinical practice and into their personal lives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.463 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Breast CancerSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207