MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117813462 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00164706

Use of tunnelled catheters for malignant pleural effusions in patients fit for pleurodesis

2007· article· en· W2117813462 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Tremblay, C.J. MASON, Ga euml tane Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleurodesisMedicineSurgeryMalignant pleural effusionChest radiographPleural effusionLungRadiologyRadiographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of tunnelled pleural catheters (TPC) in patients with malignant pleural effusions who would otherwise be candidates for pleurodesis. Patients were selected from a previously reported database of 250 TPC insertions. The study group was selected based on lung re-expansion and survival as a surrogate maker of eligibility for pleurodesis procedure, as defined by survival of > or =90 days and lung re-expansion > or =80% post-drainage on a standard chest radiograph 2 weeks post TPC placement. There were 109 procedures in 97 patients that met the entry criteria. Spontaneous pleurodesis (SP) was achieved following 70% of procedures and correlated with symptom control. The mean time to SP was 90 days. There was no need for a repeat procedure in 87% of cases overall and in 92% of patients experiencing SP. There were few complications and no procedure-related deaths. Tunnelled pleural catheters are an effective way of controlling malignant pleural effusions when used as first-line treatment in patients who appear to be candidates for pleurodesis procedures.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations114
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicPleural and Pulmonary DiseasesFrench-language works237,207