MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Positron Emission Tomography in the Management of Hodgkin Lymphoma

2011· review· en· W2108969608 on OpenAlex
Joseph M. Connors

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositron emission tomographyMedicineLymphomaMedical physicsRadiologyHodgkin lymphomaNuclear medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate imaging of lymphoma is essential for optimal management. Positron emission tomography (PET), by providing both anatomic and functional information, is fundamentally altering staging, monitoring of response, response assessment, and choice of treatment modality for lymphomas, including Hodgkin lymphoma. This imaging technique, when used carefully in conjunction with standard testing, increases the sensitivity of lesion detection, provides an opportunity to monitor the quality of response during treatment, permits separation of fibronecrotic scar tissue from viable tumor, and adds prognostic information. PET has become integral to modern lymphoma management, but as a relatively new diagnostic technique, it is still being studied and neither its full potential nor its major limitations are fully understood. Discussed herein are recent observations from clinical trials and single-center experiences with PET to explore its advantages and limitations from a clinician's point of view.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.289 · 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