MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126859836 · doi:10.1586/14737140.2014.896209

Axillary reverse lymphatic mapping in breast cancer surgery: a comprehensive review

2014· review· en· W2126859836 on OpenAlexaff
Nazgol Seyednejad, Urve Kuusk, Sam M. Wiseman

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphedemaBreast cancerLymphatic systemSentinel lymph nodeAxillary Lymph Node DissectionAxillaLymph nodeSurgeryAxillary DissectionBiopsyRadiologyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Axillary reverse lymphatic mapping (ARM) is a surgical technique that was first described in 2007 as a method for preserving the lymphatic drainage of the arm during sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for breast cancer. We found that the ARM technique had several limitations that include a poor success rate for identification of arm lymph nodes (ARM nodes) and lymphatics. The occurrence of common lymphatic drainage pathways of the arm and the breast in a subset of patients also raises concerns regarding its oncological soundness. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the ARM procedure in reducing lymphedema risk in breast cancer patients that undergo a variety of treatments, has yet to be clearly defined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207