MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developments in the pathology of ovarian tumours

2001· review· en· W2312762606 on OpenAlexaff
William Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGrading (engineering)Serous fluidOvarian cancerOvarian carcinomasPathologyEndometriosisMolecular pathologySerous carcinomaOvarian carcinomaOncologyBioinformaticsCancerInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The understanding of the pathogenesis and pathology of ovarian tumours is constantly evolving. Dominant themes in recent studies of ovarian tumours include prognostic features in borderline tumours, molecular events in the pathogenesis of ovarian tumours, the assessment of tumour features that may have prognostic or treatment implications, and the development of techniques that may enhance diagnostic accuracy. The literature has been reviewed with an aim to identifying those studies that can potentially impact practice and improve patient care. The most noteworthy developments include: the understanding that so-called 'tumours of low malignant potential' are virtually always benign, and that one can identify those rare cases with malignant potential; the importance of the recognition of micropapillary serous carcinomas; an improved understanding of early invasive carcinomas and their impact on screening practices; an understanding of the association of endometriosis with ovarian cancer; further awareness of factors in ovarian tumours that influence prognosis, such as refinements in grading and molecular markers such as P27; and refinements in diagnosis so as to distinguish primary from metastatic cancer and benign lesions from malignant tumours more effectively.

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

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207