Controversies in the management of metastatic melanoma to regional lymphatic basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary management of lymph nodes involved with metastatic melanoma is regional lymphadenectomy. Many controversies of regional lymph node dissection exist including extent and nature of the lymphadenectomy, treatment of lymphatic metastases in unusual locations and the role of adjuvant radiotherapy. Although radical neck dissection has been the gold standard for cervical disease, modified dissections do not seem to compromise regional control in appropriately selected patients. In the axilla, a Level I, II, and III dissection is most commonly performed. Combined superficial and deep groin dissection is justified for clinically palpable disease although management of patients with histologically positive yet clinically non-palpable disease is more controversial. Burden of disease, imaging, patient co-morbidity, and Cloquet nodal status must be considered. Many technical variations exist in an attempt to improve morbidity rates secondary to lymphadenectomy. Unfortunately, complication rates are difficult to compare secondary to variable study designs, definitions, and patient populations. Adjuvant radiation therapy appears warranted in patients with high risk of regional recurrence including bulky disease, extracapsular extension or cervical location.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".