MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080448046 · doi:10.1002/jso.20179

Prognostic indicators for carcinoid neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract

2005· review· en· W2080448046 on OpenAlexaff
O.P. Rorstad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsChromogranin AMedicineGastrointestinal tractCarcinoid tumorsCarcinoid syndromeEndocrine systemNeuroendocrine tumorsDiseaseUrinary systemMultiple endocrine neoplasiaPathologyInternal medicineOncologyGastroenterologyImmunohistochemistryHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factors that determine the clinical course and outcome of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) carcinoid tumors are complex and multifaceted. These include the site of origin within the GI tract, the size of the primary tumor, and the anatomical extent of disease, whether localized, regional, or metastatic to distant sites. The new World Health Organization (WHO) histological classification of endocrine tumors, including carcinoids, represents a significant advance in terms of providing a consistent framework for histopathological interpretation that should facilitate multicenter research on treatment outcomes. Histochemical indicators of a poorer prognosis are the degree of expression of the proliferation protein Ki-67 and the p53 tumor suppressor protein. Adverse clinical indicators are the malignant carcinoid syndrome, carcinoid heart disease, and high concentrations of the tumor markers, urinary 5-HIAA and plasma chromogranin A.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.350 · 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
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

Citations232
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207