MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976128012 · doi:10.1002/hed.23047

Predictive value of metastatic cervical lymph node ratio in papillary thyroid carcinoma recurrence

2012· article· en· W1976128012 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Yip, Steven Orlov, David Orlov, A Vaisman, Karen Hernandez, Daniel Etarsky, Ipshita Kak, Nikoo Parvinnejad, Jeremy L. Freeman, Paul G. Walfish

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphLymph nodeThyroid carcinomaReceiver operating characteristicOdds ratioCervical lymph nodesThyroidectomyConfidence intervalRadiologyInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyOncologyThyroidMetastasisPathologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the proportion of metastatic cervical lymph nodes resected (metastatic lymph node ratio [MLNR]) predicted papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) recurrence, and whether MLNR could alter the predictive ability of TNM nodal classification for recurrence in PTC. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with PTC who underwent a total or near-total thyroidectomy with at least 1 lymph node removed at our institution. RESULTS: Of 253 patients, 35 (13.8%) developed recurrent disease. The total MLNR (ratio between total metastatic lymph nodes and total number of lymph nodes resected) independently predicted PTC recurrence (odds ratio [OR], 1.024; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.010-1.039; p = .001). In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, TNM nodal classification with total MLNR had greater accuracy in predicting PTC recurrence than did TNM nodal classification alone (0.726 and 0.675, respectively). CONCLUSION: MLNR is an independent predictor of PTC recurrence and enhances the predictive value of TNM nodal classification.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207