MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098837530

Research Article Does the Primary Care Experience Influence the Cancer Diagnostic Process? Sylvie Provost,1,2,3 Raynald Pineault,1,2,3,4 Pierre Tousignant,1,2,3,5

2016· article· en· W7098837530 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careCancerPoint of careAlternative medicineOriginal researchWork (physics)AttributionResearch article
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copyright © 2015 Sylvie Provost et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Objective. To analyze the impact of patients ’ experience of care at their usual source of primary care on their choice of point of entry into cancer investigation process, time to diagnosis, and presence ofmetastatic cancer at time of diagnosis.Method. A questionnaire was administered to 438 patients with cancer (breast, lung, and colorectal) between 2011 and 2013 in four oncology clinics of Quebec

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207