MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030407014 · doi:10.1002/jso.21209

The role of lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer

2008· review· en· W2030407014 on OpenAlexaff
Gail Darling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphadenectomyEsophagectomyEsophageal cancerLymph nodeLymphDissection (medical)CancerSurgeryRadiologyGeneral surgeryOncologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymph node metastases are common in esophageal cancer and are associated with a poor prognosis. Resection and examination of 15-18 lymph nodes is required for adequate staging of esophageal cancer. Improved survival is associated with involvement of five or fewer nodes or lymph node ratio (LNR) of < 0.10-0.20. More extensive lymph node dissection during esophagectomy offers improved staging but may also provide therapeutic benefit in terms of control of locoregional disease and possibly improved overall survival.

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)0.001
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Citations50
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207