MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Tunneled Pleural Catheters in Malignant Mesothelioma

2005· article· en· W2086483041 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Tremblay, Milan Patel, Ga tane Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bronchology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalignant pleural effusionMesotheliomaPleurodesisPleural effusionSurgeryPleural diseaseRadiologyInternal medicineLungRespiratory diseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an incurable cancer for which effective palliation of dyspnea caused by pleural effusion is an important goal of treatment. Treatment of MPE associated with MM has been reported to have lower success rates than that associated with other tumors. We report our experience using tunneled pleural catheters (TPC) in the treatment of pleural effusions associated with MM. Method: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective TPC database in a single institution. Results: Thirty-one TPC procedures in 26 patients with MM were analyzed and compared with a control group (CG) of 218 procedures (195 patients) with malignant effusions from other tumors. Dyspnea control in the MM group was found to be complete and partial after 12 (38.7%) and 17 (54.8%) procedures, respectively, not significantly different than for the CG. Rates of spontaneous pleurodesis, need for repeat procedures, and complications were no different in MM versus CG. TPC remained in place longer in patients with MM than in the CG (83 vs. 52 days), likely as a result of longer survival. Conclusion: TPC are as effective in patients with MM as in other patients with malignant pleural effusions. Use of TPC should be considered for the palliation of malignant pleural effusions associated with MM.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BronchologySame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207