MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416394025 · doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2025.102368

Assessment of risk of bias in mortality risk prediction models for older adults with cancer: A systematic review from YSIOG and SIOG NAHS members

2025· article· en· W4416394025 on OpenAlexaff
Pauline Duquenne, Gábor Liposits, Cassandra Vonnes, E. Navarrete, A. Serrano, Florence Canouï‐Poitrine, Joana Marinho, Baran Akagündüz, Kristen R. Haase, H.·.C. Verduzo-Aguirre, Jianping Li, Colm Mac Eochagáin, Enrique Soto‐Pérez‐de‐Celis, A.P. Ayala, Joosje C. Baltussen, Kumud Kantilal, C. Wing-Lok, Aliva De, Shelby Meckstroth, Deni̇z Güven, Yue Zhao, M. Puts, Bérengère Beauplet, Jennifer L. Lund, Sophie Pilleron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive modellingRisk assessmentMEDLINERisk management tools

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical · Review

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric OncologySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207