MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034051799 · doi:10.2741/e320

Principles applications risks and benefits of therapeutic hyperthermia

2011· review· en· W2034051799 on OpenAlex
Riadh Habash

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Bioscience-Elite · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperthermiaModalitiesTherapeutic modalitiesTreatment modalityRadiation therapyProcess (computing)MedicineRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperthermia as a heat therapy is the procedure of raising the temperature of a part of or the whole body above normal for a certain period of time. Based largely on delivery methods, therapeutic hyperthermia falls under three major categories: local, regional, and whole-body. It may be applied alone or jointly with other modalities such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, radiochemotherapy, and gene therapy. Because of the individual characteristics of each type of treatment, different types of heating systems have evolved. This paper provides an overview of possible mechanisms of heat-induced cell death and the way heating exerts its beneficial effect. It also discusses various heating devices as well as other modalities used with hyperthermia. The paper concludes with a summary of benefits and risks, obstacles encountered in the treatment process, and future research directions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.200 · 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