Successful Translation of Fluorescence Navigation During Oncologic Surgery: A Consensus Report
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
Navigation with fluorescence guidance has emerged in the last decade as a promising strategy to improve the efficacy of oncologic surgery. To achieve routine clinical use, the onus is on the surgical community to objectively assess the value of this technique. This assessment may facilitate both Food and Drug Administration approval of new optical imaging agents and reimbursement for the imaging procedures. It is critical to characterize fluorescence-guided procedural benefits over existing practices and to elucidate both the costs and the safety risks. This report is the result of a meeting of the International Society of Image Guided Surgery (www.isigs.org) on February 6, 2015, in Miami, Florida, and reflects a consensus of the participants' opinions. Our objective was to critically evaluate the imaging platform technology and optical imaging agents and to make recommendations for successful clinical trial development of this highly promising approach in oncologic surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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