MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978883453 · doi:10.1155/2009/650340

Prognostic Factors in Patients with Multiple Recurrences of Well-Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma

2009· article· en· W1978883453 on OpenAlexaffabout
Theresa Holler, Jenna Theriault, Richard J. Payne, Jonathan R. Clark, Spiro Eski, Jeremy L. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThyroid carcinomaUnivariate analysisInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)DiseaseThyroid cancerOncologyMultivariate analysisDistant metastasisThyroidMetastasisSurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Patients with multiple recurrences of well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma (WDTC) have markedly reduced overall survival when compared with those who have </=1 recurrence of their disease. The purpose of this investigation is to identify prognostic factors for mortality in this subgroup. Methods. Patients with multiple recurrences of WDTC were retrospectively identified from the thyroid cancer database at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto (1963-2000). Data on patient, tumor, and recurrence characteristics were collected, and each patient was given a MACIS score. Results. A total of 31 patients were identified (11 male, 20 female; 16-83 years). Using univariate analysis, age >45, stage III/IV disease, distant metastasis, vascular invasion, MACIS score >6, and time to recurrence of <12 months were found to be significant predictors for mortality in this subgroup. Conclusions. Patients with multiple recurrences of WDTC follow a distinct clinical course, marked with multiple treatment failures and a substantial risk of mortality.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of OncologySame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207