MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062435063 · doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2007.0011

Magnetic resonance imaging of the cervix

2007· review· en· W2062435063 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCancer Imaging · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingCervixRadiologyMedical physicsNuclear medicineNuclear magnetic resonanceCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to deficiencies of clinical staging, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is being increasingly used in the pre-treatment work-up of cervical cancer. Lymph node status, as evaluated by advanced imaging modalities, is also being incorporated into management algorithms. Familiarity with MR imaging features will lead to more accurate staging of cervical cancer. Awareness of impact of staging on management will enable the radiologists to tailor the report to clinically and surgically relevant information. This article emphasizes the guidelines on the MR staging criteria, dependence of newer treatments on imaging staging and lymph node involvement, and MR imaging in post-treatment surveillance of cervical cancer.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.384
Teacher spread0.323 · 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