MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1747555357 · doi:10.3747/co.22.2693

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy with CyberKnife for Advanced Thymic Carcinoma: A Case Report

2015· article· en· W1747555357 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C.Y. Fan, Wen‐Yen Huang, Yee‐Min Jen, Matthew J. Lin, Ko-Chow Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberknifeSABR volatility modelMedicineRadiation therapyThymic carcinomaAblative caseCarcinomaRadiologyRadiosurgerySalvage therapyNuclear medicineSurgeryPathologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thymic carcinoma is a rare but lethal mediastinal cancer. The optimal treatment for advanced thymic carcinoma is not yet established. This report is the first known of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (sabr) with CyberKnife (Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA, U.S.A.) as definitive therapy for thymic carcinoma. The patient, a 70-year-old woman with thymic carcinoma, invasion into neighboring organs, and pleural metastases-underwent CyberKnife sabr at 40 Gy in 5 fractions for two lesions, one in the thymus and one in the right paraspinal pleura. After 61 months of observation, a partial response was observed in the irradiated fields. However, disease progression in the non-irradiated pleura was noted. The patient underwent salvage CyberKnife sabr for the four initially nonirradiated pleural lesions. Computed tomography images obtained 10 months after the salvage therapy revealed a partial response. The patient is living, with progression-free irradiated lesions and no radiation-related toxicity. CyberKnife sabr is feasible for patients who are unable to undergo either surgery or conventionally fractionated radiation therapy.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicMyasthenia Gravis and ThymomaFrench-language works237,207