MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986667726 · doi:10.1007/s10269-009-1850-6

Cancer du sein in situ

2010· article· de· W1986667726 on OpenAlexaff
B. Cutuli, Laurent Arnould, B. Barreau, Jean‐Pierre Bellocq, Pascal Bonnier, A Fignon, É. Fondrinier, Alain Fourquet, C. Lemanski, A. Lesur, Brigitte Sigal‐Zafrani, C. Tunon de Lara, Sophie Rousmans, L. Bosquet, V. Mazeau-Woynar

Bibliographic record

VenueONCOLOGIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre d'expertise et de recherche en infrastructures urbaines
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Du fait du dépistage du cancer du sein généralisé en France depuis 2004, les cancers du sein in situ représentent 15 à 20 % des nouveaux cancers du sein. Ces recommandations élaborées par l’Institut national du cancer et la Société française de sénologie et pathologie mammaire définissent les meilleures stratégies de prise enchargede ces lésions. La mammographie et l’échographie bilatérale sont les examens d’imagerie de référence. Les indications de l’IRM mammaire sont limitées. Letraitement de référence des cancers canalaires in situ, quand il est réalisable, comporte une tumorectomie et une radiothérapie. Les marges saines doivent être au minimum de 2 mm. Le curage ganglionnaire n’a pas d’indication, et la place du ganglion sentinelle est précisée. Pour les cancers lobulaires in situ, les recommandations s’appuient sur la classification LIN (OMS 2003). La surveillance recommandée des cancers du sein in situ traités comporte au minimum un examen clinique et une mammographie annuels complétés le plus souvent d’une échographie.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueONCOLOGIESame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207