MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139145948 · doi:10.1148/rg.321115045

FIGO Staging System for Endometrial Cancer: Added Benefits of MR Imaging

2012· article· en· W2139145948 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Beddy, Ailbhe C. O’Neill, Adam Kenji Yamamoto, Helen Addley, Caroline Reinhold, Evis Sala

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingStage (stratigraphy)Endometrial cancerRadiologyLymph nodeMalignancyCervical cancerParametrialCancerCervical carcinomaPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial cancer is the most commonly diagnosed gynecologic malignancy in the United States. This pathologic condition is staged with the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) system. The FIGO staging system recently underwent significant revision, which has important implications for radiologists. Key changes incorporated into the 2009 FIGO staging system include simplification of stage I disease and removal of cervical mucosal invasion as a distinct stage. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is essential for the preoperative staging of endometrial cancer because it can accurately depict the depth of myometrial invasion, which is the most important morphologic prognostic factor and correlates with tumor grade, presence of lymph node metastases, and overall patient survival. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging and dynamic contrast medium-enhanced MR imaging are useful adjuncts to standard morphologic imaging and may improve overall staging accuracy.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations116
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207