MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971112067 · doi:10.1055/s-2006-946643

Staging stenotic oesophageal tumours: Are CT and/or PET enough? Dilate or not?

2006· review· en· W1971112067 on OpenAlexaff
John Meenan

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Strictured oesophageal tumours are difficult for patient and physician alike. An inability to use standard equipment freely, concentrates the mind as to what the purpose of staging is: what information is sought and why? Long-term survival with oesophageal and proximal gastric tumours is poor and treatment options for locally advanced disease, unsatisfactory. The scramble for incremental improvements in survival results in a large variation in practice, particularly in respect of using neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Disagreement over general management strategy is both reflected in and moulds discussion on how the staging of stenotic lesions might be achieved. First, to address some of the important peripheral issues.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.391
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
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207