MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970574485 · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.04.006

Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). Still a no-brainer?

2015· article· en· W1970574485 on OpenAlexafffund
Phillip Davey, Marguerite Ennis, Richard I. Aviv

Bibliographic record

VenueLung Cancer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersSunnybrook Foundation
KeywordsProphylactic cranial irradiationConventional PCIMedicineIntensive care medicineMedical physicsSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) has been the standard of practice for patients successfully treated for limited stage small cell lung cancer for decades, subsequent changes in patient selection, updated brain imaging guidelines, an increased understanding of the mechanisms underlying the deleterious effects of whole brain irradiation as well as ongoing investigations into improving radiation treatment delivery have begun to question the current role of PCI. Who should be treated and how? This review attempts to gather together evidence for improving patient selection and describe potential improvements in treatment delivery.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLung CancerSame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207