MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7140070665

SISAQOL-IMI consensus-based guidelines to design, analyse, interpret and present patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

2025· article· en· W7140070665 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGhent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaEuropean Society for Medical OncologyEuropean CommissionEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
KeywordsClinical trialQuality (philosophy)Selection (genetic algorithm)Quality of life (healthcare)Alternative medicineCancerMEDLINE
DOInot available

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

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)0.383
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.495
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3830.495
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.025
Bibliometrics0.0270.019
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0200.014
Research integrity0.0170.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.017

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.251 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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 venueGhent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University)→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→