MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045376922 · doi:10.1002/jso.21253

Lymph node assessment and lymphadenectomy in bladder cancer

2009· review· en· W2045376922 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Sharir, Neil Fleshner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHumber River Regional HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphadenectomyBladder cancerLymph nodeUrologyCancerGeneral surgeryOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymph node status is a key prognostic indicator in patients with bladder cancer, so lymphadenectomy is important for accurate staging. Moreover, lymphadenectomy is curative for some patients with nodal metastases. Although there is evidence that the quality of regional node dissection is associated with oncologic outcome, controversy exists because other factors may also explain this observation. Consequently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy and number of nodes that should be assessed.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207