Impact of clinical practice guidelines on the management for carcinomas of unknown primary site: a controlled "before-after" study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2002, the French Federation of Comprehensive Cancer Centers published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of carcinomas of unknown primary (CUP). METHODS: A controlled "before-after" study at two centers (experimental in Lyon, France and control in Edmonton, Canada) to assess the impact of CPGs on CUP management. Fifty-CUP patients treated in 2000-2001, i.e. before CPG publication, and 50 patients treated in 2003-2004, were analyzed for both centers. RESULTS: In both groups, compliance for diagnostic workup was the same before or after CPGs publication. Non-adenocarcinoma histology and performance status (PS) < 2 were independent factors for CPGs compliance. In the experimental group, 75% of patients underwent inappropriate investigations. The proportion of patients from this group with unfavourable clinicopathologic entity and PS < or = 1, who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy did not significantly change (2000-2001: 27% vs. 2003-2004: 37.5%; P = 0.45). However, most patients treated in the pre period received organ-specific regimens, while most patients treated in the post period received taxane or gemcitabine-based regimens. Patients from the control group generally received taxane/carboplatin. CONCLUSIONS: Our study show that simply distributing CUP CPGs did not change practice and underline the necessity to disseminate and implement CPGs, both to oncologists and organ-specialist physicians.
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 | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".