MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fluorescence diagnosis of bladder cancer

2006· review· en· W1975604525 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerPhotodynamic therapyClinical trialCancerSurgeryPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standard management of newly presenting superficial bladder tumours is to remove the tumour endoscopically and to administer a single dose of a chemotherapeutic agent into the bladder postoperatively. However, between 20-40% of patients will develop a tumour in the bladder again within 12 months (Herr, 1997). There is controversy about whether these tumours are genuine recurrences or previously undetected tumours. Photodynamic diagnosis is currently the subject of clinical trials for detection and surveillance of bladder cancer. A solution is administered into the bladder preoperatively which is absorbed by the cancer cells. These areas within the bladder then fluoresce under blue light, aiding the surgeon to detect tumours that may not have been visible to the naked eye. The authors present a review of this developing technique and their early experiences of photodynamic diagnosis in clinical trials which appear to be clinically relevant in decreasing recurrent bladder tumours.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.321 · 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