Current Diagnosis and Management of Cancer of Unknown Primary Site in Nova Scotia, Canada: Basis for development of clinical practice guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1992 and 1999, 1421 cases of cancer of unknown primary site (CUPS) were reported in Nova Scotia (1). The prognosis for this group of patients was very poor with a mean survival of 5.2 months. A retrospective study of the diagnostic workup, therapy, response to treatment, and survival for a randomly selected group of CUPS cases from four subsets was completed. The four subsets analyzed were: adenocarcinoma of varying degrees of differentiation, neoplasms not otherwise specified (NOS), poorly differentiated carcinoma or carcinoma not otherwise specified, and squamous cell carcinoma. Findings demonstrated variation in clinical practice. The data suggests that evidence-based and cost-effective guidelines should be developed to standardize diagnostic workup and best treatment options for patients presenting with CUPS. A standard provincial or national clinical practice guideline for patients with CUPS does not currently exist. The purpose of this paper is to present a Nova Scotian perspective on CUPS patient care to aid in the formation of a provincial and national, evidence based, and critically appraised practice guideline.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".