Assignment of primary site in high‐grade serous tubal, ovarian and peritoneal carcinoma: a proposal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The revised FIGO 2013 staging for carcinomas of the ovary, fallopian tube and peritoneum has introduced a single system for tumours originating at these sites. The system requires pathologists to assign a primary site (ovary, tube or peritoneum), but does not provide guidance to aid this assignment. This is particularly problematic in cases of advanced-stage (stage II or greater) high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), where there is commonly involvement of two or more sites by tumour, and practice among pathologists in determining where a tumour has arisen varies widely. This has significant implications for recording of tumour incidence and mortality, data collection by cancer registries, and entry into clinical trials. We propose guidelines for assigning the primary site of HGSC based on careful macroscopic and histological assessment. The use of these guidelines, in conjunction with the new FIGO staging system, is intended to act as an impetus to promote debate and provide a uniform and consistent approach in assigning primary tumour site which will facilitate comparison of data between centres.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it