MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163914042 · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2015.0029

Multimodality Approaches for the Curative Treatment of Esophageal Cancer

2015· review· en· W2163914042 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophageal cancerChemoradiotherapyEsophagusGastroesophageal JunctionModality (human–computer interaction)Treatment modalityGeneral surgerySurgeryCancerRadiation therapyRadiologyInternal medicineAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction tumors presenting with locoregional disease are potentially curable, although the cure rate is modest. Many different treatment approaches have been studied, with a multimodality approach associated with a 10% to 15% greater survival advantage compared with a single-modality approach. A systematic review was conducted to address 3 clinical questions: whether patients with resectable esophageal cancer should receive preoperative versus postoperative therapy, how to choose between these options, and whether surgery be avoided in patients who are candidates for both definitive chemoradiotherapy and definitive combined modality therapy. Recommendations from 3 recent treatment guidelines from Ontario, NCCN, and Belgium were consulted to address these questions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.392
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.091 · 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