MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000852866 · doi:10.1586/17476348.2014.985210

The role of endobronchial ultrasound/esophageal ultrasound for evaluation of the mediastinum in lung cancer

2014· review· en· W2000852866 on OpenAlexaff
Kasia Czarnecka, Kazuhiro Yasufuku

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Respiratory Medicine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMediastinumRadiologyMediastinoscopyLung cancerFine-needle aspirationMediastinal lymph nodeEndoscopic ultrasoundEsophageal cancerUltrasoundMetastasisCancerBiopsyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction: of ultrasound-based, minimally invasive techniques (Endobronchial Ultrasound guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) and Esophageal Ultrasound guided Fine Needle Aspiration) has revolutionized care of patients with lung cancer needing mediastinal lymph node sampling. When combined, the techniques offer safe and accurate assessment of mediastinum, with accuracy surpassing that of the pervious gold standard - cervical mediastinoscopy. EBUS-TBNA can be used for mediastinal restaging in both, patients with suspected recurrence following treatment for primary lung cancer and followingneoadjuvant therapy in preparation for definitive surgical intervention. Both EBUS-TBNA and esophageal ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration techniques have been shown to provide sufficient material for molecular and DNA testing, extending their role beyond initial evaluation of the mediastinum to help direct and personalize medical treatment and predict response to therapy. In the future, assessing sonographic features of lymph nodesmay become useful in predicting nodal metastasis, further increasing the sensitivity of these techniques for detection of metastatic disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Respiratory MedicineSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207