MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056518154 · doi:10.1159/000096608

Treatment Options, Prognostic Factors and Selection of Treatment in Stage I Seminoma

2006· review· en· W2056518154 on OpenAlexaff
Jarad Martin, Peter Chung, Padraig Warde

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology Research and Treatment · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeminomaMedicineCarboplatinAdjuvantMalignancyChemotherapyRadiation therapyStage (stratigraphy)Adjuvant chemotherapySurgeryPopulationTesticular cancerOncologyInternal medicineCisplatinCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment options in patients with stage I seminoma include radiotherapy (RT), surveillance, and adjuvant chemotherapy. This patient population has virtually a 100% cure rate whichever approach is taken. While adjuvant retroperitoneal RT has been the standard of care for the past 50-60 years, there is increasingly persuasive data that adjuvant RT in this setting is associated with a small but definite increased risk of second malignancy and cardiovascular death. The long-term data from surveillance series have documented the safety of this approach, and it is now accepted that a policy of surveillance is the optimal management approach. This gives a relapse rate of 15%, and most patients can be successfully salvaged with RT. Second relapse after salvage RT occurs in a small proportion of cases, and these patients are cured with chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy using carboplatin has been investigated as an alternative strategy but has not lived up to its initial promise. If used, then 2 courses of treatment should probably be given. It must be remembered that 80-85% of patients with testicular seminoma require no treatment after orchiectomy, and the long-term side effects of any adjuvant treatment approach must be carefully considered.

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 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 score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology Research and TreatmentSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207