MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130228377 · doi:10.1586/era.09.13

Role of MRI for staging of rectal cancer

2009· review· en· W2130228377 on OpenAlexaff
Kartik Jhaveri, Arifa Sadaf

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerTotal mesorectal excisionRadiologyNeoadjuvant therapyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiation therapySurgical planningRadiation treatment planningCancerInternal medicineBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total mesorectal excision has been established as a standard surgical procedure for rectal cancer. MRI is now routinely used for preoperative staging of rectal cancer and provides accurate assessment of the tumor relative to the circumferential margin, that is, the mesorectal fascia. This identifies patients at risk of local recurrence and those likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy. Compared with CT and ultrasound, MRI is more reliable for the evaluation of the extent of locoregional disease, planning radiation therapy, assessing postoperative changes and pelvic recurrence. The evaluation of nodal metastases remains a challenge with routine MRI. In this review, we describe the role of MRI in staging rectal cancer as well as highlight some limitations and recent advances to overcome these.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207