MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1665091651 · doi:10.1155/2015/967472

Gallbladder Cancer in the 21st Century

2015· review· en· W1665091651 on OpenAlexaff
Rani Kanthan, Jenna‐Lynn Senger, Shahid Ahmed, Selliah Kanthan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePathognomonicGallbladder cancerMalignancyDiseaseEpidemiologyStage (stratigraphy)Radiological weaponGeneral surgeryCancerPopulationIntensive care medicinePathologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is an uncommon disease in the majority of the world despite being the most common and aggressive malignancy of the biliary tree. Early diagnosis is essential for improved prognosis; however, indolent and nonspecific clinical presentations with a paucity of pathognomonic/predictive radiological features often preclude accurate identification of GBC at an early stage. As such, GBC remains a highly lethal disease, with only 10% of all patients presenting at a stage amenable to surgical resection. Among this select population, continued improvements in survival during the 21st century are attributable to aggressive radical surgery with improved surgical techniques. This paper reviews the current available literature of the 21st century on PubMed and Medline to provide a detailed summary of the epidemiology and risk factors, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, radiology, pathology, management, and prognosis of GBC.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations300
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207