MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148802044 · doi:10.1002/cncr.10492

TNM residual tumor classification revisited

2002· article· en· W2148802044 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Wittekind, Carolyn C. Compton, Frederick L. Greene, Leslie H. Sobin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResidualStandardizationDiseaseClassification schemeIntensive care medicineCompleteness (order theory)OncologyInternal medicineMachine learningComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: For cancer patients, prognosis is strongly influenced by the completeness of tumor removal at the time of cancer-directed surgery or disease remission after nonsurgical treatment with curative intent. These parameters define the relative success of definitive treatment and can be codified by an additional subclassification within the TNM system, the residual tumor (R) classification. Despite the importance of residual tumor status in designing clinical management after treatment, misinterpretation and inconsistent application of the R classification frequently occur that diminish or abrogate its clinical utility. METHODS: An analysis of the relevant literature regarding the use and prognostic importance of the R classification was undertaken. RESULTS: In the current study, the prognostic importance of the R classification for different kinds of tumors is discussed. Problems that arise in using the R classification are described. Special issues regarding the use of the R classification are addressed. CONCLUSIONS: The R classification is a strong indicator of prognosis and facilitates the comparison of treatment results if applied in a consistent manner. Uniform use and interpretation of this classification is essential for the standardization of posttreatment data collection.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations491
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207