Effect of stunning of diagnostic 131-iodine doses on ablative doses for differentiated thyroid cancer patient’s outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Thyroid stunning was defined as transient reduction of thyroid tissue uptake 131I (RAI-131) ablative dose after a diagnostic 131I dose that decreases the final absorbed dose in ablative therapy. Aim of the study: after following the proper precautions compare the response to the ablative dose given to patients with differentiated thyroid cancer with or without diagnostic radioactive iodine 131(RAI-131). Patients and methods: One hundred patients with differentiated thyroid cancer were included and divided into two groups: Group I, ablative dose of RAI-131according to their risk stratification without diagnostic dose and Group II, patients performing diagnostic whole body scan [5mCi] followed by ablative dose. Results: The current study have showed no significant associations between overall response in both groups and the different studied parameters except for the mean ablative dose of RAI-131 [r=0.9; P<0.001 and r=0.7, P<0.001 in group I and group II respectively]. Correlation matrix was used in all patients revealed that overall response was highly correlated with risk stratification; cervical nodal status and RAI-131 ablative dose [ P values <0.01; <0.01 and <0.01 respectively], while regression proved that the only predictor for response is the mean RAI-131 ablative dose. Conclusion: Following the proper precautions prevent stunning appearance after the diagnostic dose success rate to ablation will not be affected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".