MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090544453 · doi:10.1002/hon.890

Involved field radiotherapy for limited stage Hodgkin lymphoma: balancing treatment efficacy against long‐term toxicities

2009· review· en· W2090544453 on OpenAlexaff
Jayant Sastri Goda, Richard Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyLymphomaStage (stratigraphy)DiseaseHodgkin lymphomaChemotherapyOncologyModality (human–computer interaction)Intensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) refers to patients with stage IA or IIA disease in the absence of any bulky mass or unfavourable prognostic factors. In this group, the long-term disease control with treatment can be expected in more than 90%, and management has now been directed to make strategies to reduce late morbidities related to therapy. With the advent of very effective chemotherapy, the role of radiation therapy has evolved from a first line single modality treatment, to an adjuvant therapy following brief cycles of chemotherapy. Optimal radiation volume and dose parameters have been refined in the combined modality setting. Furthermore, with the progress in diagnostic functional imaging and advances in radiotherapy, it is possible to accurately deliver low to moderate doses of radiation to defined regions resulting in durable control of disease. This review will evaluate the literature that shapes the current standard of care in limited stage Hodgkin lymphoma with special emphasis on the use of limited field radiotherapy.

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 score0.008

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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207