Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum 2008
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Canada, at least 4500 people are diagnosed with kidney cancer, and 1 in 3 die of the disease. It is the most lethal genitourinary cancer, and its incidence is increasing. Unlike most human cancers, there is considerable knowledge about specific genetic changes in these cancers. Major advances in treatment are being made owing to new systemic targeted therapies as well as less morbid technologies for localized cancers. The first Canadian Kidney Cancer Forum was held Jan. 31–Feb. 2, 2008, in Mont Tremblant, Quebec, to review these developments and identify opportunities for Canadians. The primary meeting objectives were achieved and included: Achievement of consensus among expert professionals and patients on the management of patients with localized, locally advanced and metastatic renal cell carcinoma, as well as the in the areas of pathology and imaging. Over 3 days, a series of sessions were held to address the different stages of disease and issues. In this issue, we present the consensus statements. Key references in each area were provided by experts and were graded using a modified version of the Oxford Levels of Evidence. During the conference, experts in each area presented, followed by an opportunity for questions and discussion. At the end of the forum, overviews were presented, and participants voted on draft statements developed during the sessions. Stimulation of clinical research in kidney cancer including opportunities for national and international collaboration. To achieve this, the formation of a research network was proposed with the suggested name, Kidney Cancer Research Network Canada. Definition of educational needs to improve kidney cancer care in Canada. This included discussing a national kidney cancer database that will be developed. Initiating the development of a cancer control strategy for kidney cancer to ensure all Canadians have equal access to care to attempt to develop a national approach to the management of this cancer. The Forum was endorsed by the Canadian Urological Association, the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists and the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists, and was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Cancer Institute of Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, several provincial cancer agencies (Cancer Care Ontario, Cancer Care Manitoba, Cancer Care Nova Scotia, Alberta Cancer Foundation) and the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, and industry. These groups had been identified by the steering committee as ones that had demonstrated expertise, interest or experience in clinical or research aspects of kidney cancer. They were joined by a small number of invited participants from Europe and the United States to bring an international perspective to the process. Dr. George Browman, representing the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, contributed expertise in the development and use of guidelines for cancer care. Overall, the participants believe that the forum will have a significant impact on the care of Canadians afflicted with kidney cancer. Given the enormous success of this first meeting, planning for a second meeting in 2009 has commenced.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,156 | 0,034 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».