MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987861262 · doi:10.1309/17vkm33bfxf9t8wd

Barriers to Optimal Assessment of Lymph Nodes in Colorectal Cancer Specimens

2004· article· en· W1987861262 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frances C. Wright, Calvin Law, Linda Last, Rosalie Ritacco, Deepa Kumar, Eugene Hsieh, Mahmoud A. Khalifa, Andrew J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerMedicineLymph nodeNegativity effectOncologyMedical physicsCancerPathologyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymph node (LN) retrieval and assessment is critically important for accurate staging and treatment planning in colorectal cancer (CRC). Practicing pathologists in Ontario were identified and surveyed by phone to identify barriers to optimal retrieval and assessment. Of the pathologists surveyed, 57.9% were aware of guidelines for LN retrieval in CRC, but only 25.0% identified that a minimum of 12 LNs are necessary for accurate designation of node negativity. An important role exists for an education strategy aimed at bridging the knowledge gap among practicing pathologists and surgeons regarding optimal LN assessment in CRC specimens.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.410 · 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

Citations44
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207