MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324542277 · doi:10.5306/wjco.v6.i1.1

Axillary lymph node management in breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy

2015· article· en· W2324542277 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

VenueWorld Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsSault Area Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSentinel lymph nodeBreast cancerAxillary Lymph Node DissectionLymph nodeBiopsyLymphDissection (medical)Axillary lymph nodesSentinel nodeRadiologyCancerGeneral surgerySurgeryPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surgical treatment of localized breast cancer has become progressively less aggressive over the years. The management of the axillary lymph nodes has been modified by the introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Axillary dissection can be avoided in patients with sentinel lymph node negative biopsies. Based on randomized trials data, it has been proposed that no lymph node dissection should be carried out even in certain patients with sentinel lymph node positive biopsies. This commentary discusses the basis of such recommendations and cautions against a general omission of lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsies. Instead, an individualized approach based on axillary tumor burden and biology of the cancer should be considered.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.337 · 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