MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001538237 · doi:10.1586/era.10.159

Metastatic retropharyngeal lymph nodes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: imaging criteria

2010· review· en· W2001538237 on OpenAlexaff
Manas Sharma, Eric Bartlett, Eugene Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNasopharyngeal carcinomaRadiologyRadiation therapyBiopsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of: Zhang GY, Liu LZ, Wei WH, Deng YM, Li YZ, Liu XW. Radiologic criteria of retropharyngeal lymph node metastasis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with radiation therapy. Radiology 255(2), 605-612 (2010). Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is the most common nasopharyngeal neoplasm and has a high propensity for developing regional neck adenopathy. NPC arises most often in the fossa of Rosenmüller, and differs significantly from other head and neck cancers with respect to its incidence, etiology, clinical behavior and treatment. NPC is commonly associated with retropharyngeal nodes. As retropharyngeal nodes are anatomically difficult to approach for biopsy/fine-needle aspiration cytology, imaging plays a critical role in their detection and staging. The paper by Zhang et al. reports data on 303 NPC patients from a large center in China and highlights specific radiologic criteria for assessing retropharyngeal nodal metastases in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207