Defining the surgical management of suspected early‐stage ovarian cancer by estimating patient numbers through alternative management strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish the optimal management strategy for women with suspected stage 1 ovarian cancer. DESIGN: We created a flowchart to illustrate each of six hypothetical management strategies. These considered two surgical approaches (systematic lymphadenectomy versus no lymph node dissection at all) in combination with three different policies for giving adjuvant chemotherapy. SETTING: Gynaecological cancer centre, London, UK. DATA SOURCES: Patient data and published papers. METHODS: We developed a deterministic model that uses information from multiple sources to estimate patient flow through each level of a hypothesised decision tree. RESULTS: We estimated that for every 100 cases of suspected early-stage ovarian cancer, there would be 37 cases with 'apparent' stage 1 disease and that of these, two (6%) would be denied potentially life-saving adjuvant treatment if systematic lymphadenectomy was not performed. The number of women given chemotherapy would not, according to our estimates, differ greatly between the two surgical approaches, the 7% increase with systematic lymphadenectomy being because of cases identified as having nodal metastases. CONCLUSIONS: We present a model of the intraoperative decision-making process that determines the extent of the staging procedure to be performed within our department when early-stage ovarian cancer is suspected. Unless adjuvant chemotherapy is prescribed for all, systematic pelvic and para-aortic node dissection is required to optimise survival. However, in our department, this would result in 32% of women with suspected early-stage ovarian cancer undergoing systematic node dissection. This flexible focused model may facilitate multidisciplinary team discussion when this part of the surgical staging procedure is considered within the context of the population presenting to the team, the morbidity of the procedure within the department and the predictive values of frozen section within that department. As the model is not disease-specific, it may be useful for decision making in other medical disciplines.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".