MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133017309 · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.6-3-257

Review of Recent Advances in Fluorescence Bronchoscopy in Early Localization of Central Airway Lung Cancer

2001· review· en· W2133017309 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy C. Kennedy, Stephen Lam, Fred R. Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineField cancerizationLung cancerBronchoscopyMalignancyRadiologyAutofluorescenceSputumOccultLungCancerAirway obstructionPathologyAirwaySurgeryInternal medicineTuberculosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Centrally located lung cancers are radiologically occult until so far advanced as to have a low cure rate or require extensive resection for cure, but at a cost of high morbidity. These cancers represent about one-fifth of new lung cancers. Autofluorescence bronchoscopy appears to be an important tool in localizing premalignant and early malignant lesions in the large central airways, particularly when applied to high-risk patients. Applications include studies of molecular biology of premalignancy and early malignancy, chemoprevention studies, endobronchial therapy studies, localization of synchronous tumors, estimation of the extent of field cancerization, and better estimation of resection margins. Autofluorescence bronchoscopy appears to be significantly more sensitive than white light examination but has low specificity. This technology is likely to gain widespread use when evaluation of sputum for malignant changes is both more sensitive and specific, and when its application is demonstrated to reduce mortality in this important subgroup of non-small cell lung cancer patients.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations91
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207