MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975834202 · doi:10.1097/cmr.0b013e328357bea8

Uveal melanoma dormancy

2012· review· pl· W1975834202 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Blanco, Li Anne Lim, Cristina Miyamoto, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

VenueMelanoma Research · 2012
Typereview
Languagepl
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelanomaMedicineMalignancyEnucleationDiseaseLife expectancyStage (stratigraphy)MetastasisOncologyPathologyCancerInternal medicineSurgeryCancer researchBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uveal melanoma is a rare but life-threatening malignancy. Over the past decades, the morbidity of uveal melanoma has been markedly reduced as a result of advances in the diagnostic ability to detect smaller tumors at an earlier stage. This has allowed for the use of more conservative treatments, avoiding enucleation. Mortality, however, has remained unchanged. This indicates that life expectancy is independent of local tumor control. Metastatic disease, the leading cause of death, is usually diagnosed many years later, despite successful treatment of the primary tumor, and at a late stage, when no effective therapy is available. These observations suggest that the disease was already disseminated at the time of tumor diagnosis. The detection of circulating malignant cells in the bloodstream of patients at different time points in the course of the disease supports this observation. Tumor dormancy has been considered as the leading theory for this intriguing delayed appearance of metastasis. Recent knowledge gained about the biological behavior of uveal melanoma as well as novel potential therapeutic targets are presented in this review.

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)0.000
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMelanoma ResearchSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207