Retraction Notice to: Normalization of CA19-9 Following Resection for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma is not Tantamount to being Cured?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At our request the paper entitled “Normalization of CA19-9 following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is not tantamount to being cured?” (Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 661-666) has been retracted. The reason was the authers found the mistake to review the patient’s medical records carelessly. Nonsecretors (CA19-9 < 5 U/mL) are likely to be Lewis a-b- antigen negative (Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:2188-2196; Int J Cancer 2015; 136:22162227). Previous study has been demonstrated that CA19-9 nonsecretors underwent curative resection of pancreatic cancer had poor prognosis, and were analyzed as a separate group (Am J Clin Oncol 2014;37:550-554). Seventeen nonsecretors (0.8 U/ml to 5 U/mL, page 622, Table 1) need to be excluded from this study in our original project design. However, these patients were not excluded in our published paper (Asian Pac J Cancer Prev.2015;16:661-666.), and all the data need to be revised. As a result, the original conclusions have been compromised, especially in the patients with double-negative (postoperative CA19-9 ≤ 37 U/mL and no lymph node metastasis). We are so sorry for this mistake.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchResearch integrity Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.044 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".