MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selection of Patients for Resection of Hepatic Metastases: Improved Detection of Extrahepatic Disease with FDG PET

2001· review· en· W2100040914 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Zealley, Stephen J. Skehan, John Rawlinson, Geoffrey Coates, Claude Nahmias, Sat Somers

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSelection (genetic algorithm)ResectionDiseaseRadiologyInternal medicineSurgeryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rapidly emerging clinical application of positron emission tomography (PET) is the detection of tumor tissue at whole-body studies performed with the glucose analogue 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG). High rates of recurrence after partial hepatic resection in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases indicate that current presurgical imaging strategies are failing to show extrahepatic tumor deposits. Although FDG PET cannot match the anatomic resolution of conventional imaging techniques in the liver and the lungs, it is particularly useful for identification and characterization of extrahepatic disease. FDG PET can show foci of metastatic disease that may not be apparent at conventional anatomic imaging and can aid in the characterization of indeterminate soft-tissue masses. Several sources of benign and physiologic increased activity at FDG PET emphasize the need for careful correlation with findings of other imaging studies and clinical findings. FDG PET can improve the selection of patients for partial hepatic resection and thereby reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with inappropriate surgery.

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)0.000
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207