Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: A large, recent study has shown significantly improved survival in women with epithelial ovarian cancer treated with intraperitoneal chemotherapy. This review is intended for all clinicians caring for women with ovarian cancer, including family physicians, general gynecologists, and oncologists. The subset of patients most likely to derive a survival benefit from intraperitoneal chemotherapy should be distinguished. Because effective surgical debulking is critical to long-term survival for ovarian cancer, it is important that women known or suspected to have ovarian cancer should be referred to centers with the surgical expertise and resources necessary for aggressive tumor debulking and safe delivery of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completion of this article, the reader should be able to state that there is a subset of women with widespread intraabdominal ovarian cancer who will have improved survival after a debulking procedure and intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy and explain that there needs to be the expertise and resources necessary to follow these patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".