MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125122226 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.071124

Diagnostic accuracy of tests for lymph node status in primary cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2008· review· en· W2125122226 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMagnetic resonance imagingLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalCervical cancerPositron emission tomographySentinel lymph nodeLymph nodeSystematic reviewDiagnostic odds ratioMEDLINERadiologyCancerOncologyInternal medicineBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lymph node status is the key to determining the prognosis and treatment of cervical cancer. However, it cannot be assessed clinically, and testing for nodal metastasis is controversial. We sought to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy literature on sentinel node biopsy, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography to evaluate the accuracy of each index test in determining lymph node status in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE (1980-2006), Medion (1980-2006) and the Cochrane library (Issue 2, 2006) for relevant articles. We also manually searched the reference lists from primary articles and reviews, and we contacted experts in the field for conference abstracts and unpublished studies. We performed random-effects meta-analysis of accuracy indices, and we performed meta-regression analysis to test the effect of study quality on diagnostic accuracy and to identify other sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: We included 72 relevant primary studies, involving a total of 5042 women, in our analysis. We found that, in determining lymph node status, sentinel node biopsy had a pooled positive likelihood ratio of 40.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.6-67.6) and a pooled negative likelihood ratio of 0.18 (95% CI 0.14-0.24). The pooled positive likelihood ratios (and 95% CI) were 15.3 (7.9-29.6) for positron emission tomography, 6.4 (4.9-8.3) for magnetic resonance imaging and 4.3 (3.0-6.2) for computed tomography. The pooled negative likelihood ratios (and 95% CIs) were 0.27 (0.11-0.66) for positron emission tomography, 0.50 (0.39-0.64) for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.58 (0.48-0.70) for computed tomography. Using a 27% pretest probability of lymph node metastasis among all cases (regardless of stage), we found that a positive sentinel node biopsy result increased post-test probability to 94% (95% CI 90%-96%), whereas a positive finding on positron emission tomography increased it to 85% (75%-92%). INTERPRETATION: Sentinel node biopsy has greater accuracy in determining lymph node status among women with primary cervical cancer than current commonly used imaging methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.304 · 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