MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169982902 · doi:10.1002/jso.20368

Improving outcomes after esophagectomy: The impact of operative volume

2005· review· en· W2169982902 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagectomyMalignancyPerioperativeEsophageal cancerGeneral surgeryEsophageal adenocarcinomaIncidence (geometry)SurgeryAdenocarcinomaOncologic surgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Once considered an uncommon malignancy, primary esophageal adenocarcinoma has increased steadily in incidence over the past three decades. Despite advances in multimodality therapy, the prognosis for this tumor is generally poor. Surgical resection and reconstruction of the upper gastrointestinal tract is the current standard of care for localized esophageal cancer, but despite advances in perioperative care, still remains a relatively high-risk surgical procedure. Increasing numbers of reports published over the past decade have documented a clear volume-outcome relationship for several complex surgical procedures, and in particular for esophagectomy. The clinical implications of this association are reviewed in this section.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.410 · 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