MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098140935

Re: Hauschild A. Adjuvant interferon alfa for mela- noma: new evidence-based treatment recommenda-

2009· article· en· W7098140935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS oral health manifestations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterferon alfaInterferonAdjuvantAlpha interferonMelanomaCancerDiseaseClinical trialSurvival analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author poses the question “Why did these study results not lead to a global consensus about interferon treatment as standard of care?” The answer is quite simple: The E1684 adjuvant high-dose interferon (hdifn) trial, while initially positive, was later shown to be negative. Remarkably, in spite of a p value of 0.09, the principal investigator still interpreted the trial as positive 1. Cancer Care Ontario’s Melanoma Disease Site Group concluded, “The precise reasons for the attenuation in overall survival are not clear. ” Most clinicians and statisticians agree that mature analysis of E1684 showed no overall survival benefit. The highly anticipated “confirmatory ” trial (E1690) was completely negative for overall survival benefit as a whole and in any subgroup of patients 2.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHIV/AIDS oral health manifestationsFrench-language works237,207