MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Primary transpupillary thermotherapy for small suspicious choroidal nevi

2012· article· en· W1988983994 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Turcotte, Dan Bergeron, Antoine Rousseau, F. Mouriaux

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital du Saint-Sacrement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaChoroidal melanomaRetrospective cohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the ocular and systemic outcomes of patients treated by transpupillary thermotherapy (TTT) for suspicious choroidal nevi at our oncology centre. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients with a newly diagnosed small suspicious choroidal nevus treated by TTT at our oncology centre from the date of acquisition of the laser (2002) to September 2011. Standard treatment consisted of three TTT sessions. Patients with two or more risk factors for tumour growth were systematically treated. Ocular and systemic outcomes were reviewed and compared with those of similar patients that were observed between 1990 and 2008. Results Our preliminary data include 8 patients treated by TTT and 56 patients that were followed‐up without treatment. Of the treated patients, 3 (37.5%) showed progression with a mean time to recurrence of 13 months. Of the observed patients, 23 (41%) showed progression with a mean time to recurrence of 41 months. There were no reported deaths in the treated group, and 3 (5.4%) deaths due to metastatic melanoma in the observation group. Conclusion Despite careful patient selection, primary TTT for small suspicious choroidal nevi showed poor local tumour control. No deaths due to metastatic melanoma were reported in the follow‐up of treated patients, and mortality remained low in the observation group.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207