MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049186701 · doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.01.039

The role of surgical cytoreduction in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: Meeting summary of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group Congress, September 11-14, 2012, Boston, Mass

2013· article· en· W2049186701 on OpenAlexaff
Valerie W. Rusch, Elizabeth H. Baldini, Raphael Bueno, Marc de Perrot, Raja M. Flores, Seiki Hasegawa, Walter Klepetko, Lee M. Krug, Loı̈c Lang-Lazdunski, Harvey I. Pass, Walter Weder, David J. Sugarbaker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMesotheliomaInterest groupGeneral surgeryPleural diseaseSurgeryInternal medicineRespiratory diseasePathologyLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The treatment of all solid tumors, including malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), is dependent on (1) macroscopic complete resection and (2) treatment of micrometastatic disease. The role of surgery in the treatment of MPM has been the subject of debate after the recent publication of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) I trial.1 The International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) met from September 11 through 14, 2012, in Boston, Mass. During this meeting, more than 500 participants representing all the involved specialty groups met in multiple comprehensive sessions to review, critique, and extend the state of knowledge regarding the role of surgery, including both extended pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) and extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), in the treatment of MPM.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations152
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgerySame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207