MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Update on granulosa cell tumours of the ovary

2003· review· en· W2062762146 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin Stuart, Lesa Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGranulosa cellOvaryDiseaseStage (stratigraphy)AtypiaPathologyOncologyGynecologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Granulosa cell tumours of the ovary are an uncommon ovarian sex-cord stromal tumour. These neoplasms provide a spectrum of clinical presentations that span from the first to the tenth decade. Surgery represents the primary therapy for early stage disease; however, management of women with advanced disease is less clear. Because of their relative rarity, evidence to support decision-making in the management of granulosa cell tumours is limited. The purpose of this review is to provide the clinician with an updated knowledge of the clinical and molecular aspects of granulosa cell tumours in order to guide therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: The clinical stage, mitotic index and cellular atypia correlate most strongly with prognosis. However, these tumours may demonstrate heterogeneous genetic aberrations that can predict behaviour and response to therapy. Case series and reports suggest that postoperative combination chemotherapy is of most benefit in advanced disease. Serial measurements of serum inhibin may be helpful in the follow-up of these women, particularly in the post-menopausal group. SUMMARY: The pathology and treatment of women with granulosa cell tumours of the ovary is complex. Such women should be managed in a multidisciplinary gynaecological oncology unit. A better understanding of the molecular pathology may assist treatment.

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)0.001
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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations73
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207