Cancer épithélial évolué de l’ovaire de la patiente âgée: quel état des lieux suite à la Conférence internationale de Vancouver?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have not enough knowledge on the standard treatments of ovarian cancer in the elderly, in terms of feasibility, tolerance and efficacy, because of their relative under representation in clinical trials. The standard treatment of ovarian cancer is radical surgery followed by chemotherapy. However, there is a small proportion of elderly women in clinical trials and the real efficacy of standard, platinum/taxanes-based chemotherapy, is not precisely defined. It is necessary to integrate co-morbidity and vulnerability of the elderly persons, to better anticipate which kind of chemotherapy and surgery should be performed and for which patients, by combining, as in the PACE study for example, tools of evaluation of the surgical risks with components of the geriatric assessment. Currently available data allows us to discriminate between “fit” and “frail” patients; the former being able to tolerate standard procedures, and the latter being at higher risk of toxicity and impaired life-expectancy. Different questions should be asked in collaborative trials for each population, respectively.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".