Recommandations pour la pratique clinique: Standards, Options: Recommandations 2007 pour la prise en charge des patientes atteintes de tumeurs épithéliales malignes de l’ovaire. Traitement chirurgical (rapport abrégé)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La mise à jour de ces recommandations a été élaborée par la Fédération nationale des centres de lutte contre le cancer (FNCLCC) en partenariat avec les secteurs public, privé et l’Institut national du cancer. Actualiser les recommandations du chapitre «Traitement chirurgical» issu du rapport intégral validé en 1999. L’actualisation des Standards, Options: Recommandations (SOR) repose sur une revue et une analyse critique des données scientifiques disponsibles et sur le jugement argumenté des experts au sein d’un groupe de travail représentatif des modes et lieux d’exercice et des disciplines concernées par la prise en charge des patients atteints de cancer. Cet article présente les recommandations SOR 2007 relatives au traitement chirurgical des stades précoces et des stades avancés, établies à l’issue du processus d’actualisation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.088 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".