Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The issue facing clinicians managing ovarian cancer has evolved over the past three decades from treatment for cure and subsequently palliation, to prolongation of survival for most patients. The purpose of this paper is to review the data, rationale, and issues surrounding cytoreductive surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer and its potential role in this new paradigm shift. RECENT FINDINGS: Abundant retrospective series report prolongation of survival with secondary cytoreductive surgery in recurrent ovarian cancer. Selection bias, publication bias, and subsequent therapies, however, are confounding factors for survival. As management of ovarian cancer has recently evolved to a treatment of a 'chronic disease', surgery (which has a definite role in primary therapy) should be considered. SUMMARY: No prospective randomized studies have been performed to date, and therefore adoption of this method of management has been limited. The absence of good data leaves clinicians without clear direction on how to best manage patients. Patients with favorable characteristics such as a long disease-free interval, good performance status, a single or few small intra-abdominal recurrences may benefit from secondary cytoreduction. A prospective randomized study is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".