MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oesophagus Including Oesophagogastric Junction

2010· other· en· W1527612340 on OpenAlexaff
Leslie H. Sobin, M.K. Gospodarowicz, Ch. Wittekind

Bibliographic record

VenueTNM Online · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)AdenocarcinomaLymphCarcinomaMedicineDistant metastasisMetastasisGastroesophageal JunctionStomachGastric carcinomaEsophagogastric junctionPathologyInternal medicineCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Carcinoma of the oesophagus has undergone a major modification between the 6th and 7th TNM editions: T1 and T4 are subdivided to provide greater detail for imaging and management; regional lymph nodes (N) are subdivided by number involved rather than by their location; distant metastasis (M) has been simplified to M1 rather than subdivided by location. Stage grouping has been divided into: 1) purely anatomical stages applicable to all types of carcinomas; and 2) prognostic groups that separate squamous from adenocarcinoma and add grade and tumour location to the T, N, and M elements. The first approach preserves the pure anatomic extent of disease concept and allows direct stage by stage comparisons of behaviour between tumours of different histological types and location; the second recognizes the prognostic influence of grade and tumour location. The use of the terms Stage grouping and Prognostic grouping distinguishes the two. The staging of carcinomas of the oesophagogastric/gastroesophageal junction has been addressed and the definition is noted in the oesophagus and stomach chapters.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.042

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTNM OnlineSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207