MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325068362 · doi:10.1007/dcr.0b013e31820c9b1b

Anorectal Melanoma: Diagnosis and Treatment

2011· review· en· W2325068362 on OpenAlex
Ari‐Nareg Meguerditchian, Sarkis Meterissian, Kelli Bullard Dunn

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

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominoperineal resectionHemorrhoidsSurgeryMelanomaRadiation therapyColorectal surgeryIncidence (geometry)Surgical oncologyDiseaseGeneral surgeryColorectal cancerDermatologyCancerInternal medicineAbdominal surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increase in the incidence of anorectal melanoma has recently been noted in the United States. Anorectal melanoma is an uncommon and lethal condition, with a median survival of <20 months. Unfortunately, nonspecific symptoms also attributable to common and benign conditions (eg, hemorrhoids) cause significant delay in its diagnosis. Although it has not been validated by clinical trials, abdominoperineal resection has historically been the treatment of choice for this disease. However, for the past 2 decades, a lack of clear survival benefit has led to a shift toward less-mutilating wide local excisions. Controversy still exists regarding the benefit of radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Furthermore, the value of nodal surgery in anorectal melanoma is unclear. In this article, we review the history and current status of management of anorectal melanoma, with a particular focus on surgical controversies and challenges in optimizing survival.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.255 · 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