Timoma: discussão sobre tratamento e prognóstico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Mostrar uma casuística de pacientes com timoma, tratados cirurgicamente, com ou sem outra terapia associada, no Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Sudeste do Brasil, avaliando o prognóstico destes. Métodos: Entre 1965 e 1998 foram operados 104 pacientes com neoplasias do timo, sendo 69 (66,3%) do sexo masculino; a idade média ao diagnóstico foi de 47,9 ± 16,3 anos, com faixa de variação de 13 a 76 anos de idade. Resultados: Dos 104 operados, 89 (85,6%) foram submetidos a ressecção total do timoma, 6 (5,8%) a ressecção parcial e 9 (8,6%) a biópsia. O diagnóstico anatomopatológico (timoma x timoma maligno) e a cirurgia (biópsia x ressecção total x ressecção parcial) foram significativamente preditivos (p < 0,02) para o tempo médio de sobrevida. Conclusão: A ressecção completa é o tratamento de escolha para os timomas. Esses tumores, quando não invasivos e ressecados completamente, apresentam bom prognóstico imediato e tardio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".