Acknowledging awareness: informing families of individual research results for patients in the vegetative state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose/Objective The optimal adjuvant treatment of type II endometrial carcinoma after hysterectomy remains controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) on recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival in patients with early-stage type II endometrial carcinoma. Materials and Methods In this institutional review board–approved study, our database of 1450 patients with endometrial cancer was reviewed. Seventy-nine surgically staged patients with 2009 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages I and II serous and clear cell carcinoma were treated from 1991 to 2010. These patients were then divided into 2 groups; one group received adjuvant RT, and the other group included patients who did not receive adjuvant RT. Results The median age of the study cohort is 65 years, and the median follow-up is 47 months. Thirty-nine patients (49%) received adjuvant RT, and 40 patients did not. The 5-year RFS was significantly improved in patients who received RT (84% vs 58%; P = 0.002). Similarly, 5-year DSS was significantly improved in patients who received RT (87% vs 58%; P = 0.023) with a trend toward improved 5-year overall survival (74% vs 58%; P = 0.088). On multivariate analysis, lack of angiolymphatic invasion (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001), adjuvant RT (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004), and lack of lower uterine segment involvement (P = 0.007 and P = 0.009) were independent predictors of improved RFS and DSS, respectively. Conclusions In the current study of surgically staged patients with type II endometrial carcinoma International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages I and II, adjuvant radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy resulted in a significant improvement in recurrence-free and disease-specific survival.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".