MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165217523 · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.008

Critical Assessment of Ideal Nodal Yield at Pelvic Lymphadenectomy to Accurately Diagnose Prostate Cancer Nodal Metastasis in Patients Undergoing Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy

2007· article· en· W2165217523 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Briganti, Felix K.‐H. Chun, Andrea Salonia, Andrea Gallina, Giuseppe Zanni, Vincenzo Scattoni, Luc Valiquette, Patrizio Rigatti, Francesco Montorsi, Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueUrology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadical retropubic prostatectomyProstatectomyProstate cancerDissection (medical)Receiver operating characteristicLymph nodeUrologyProstate-specific antigenLymphStage (stratigraphy)LymphadenectomyMetastasisProstateRadiologyCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations165
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueUrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207