A systematic review of regional hyperthermia therapy in bladder cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Bladder cancer therapy remains suboptimal as morbidity and mortality remain high amongst those with non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive disease. Regional hyperthermia therapy (RHT) is a promising adjunctive therapy being tested in multiple clinical contexts. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the efficacy and toxicity of RHT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration number: CRD42015025780) and was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane libraries. Two reviewers reviewed abstracts independently and a third reviewer arbitrated disagreements. The last search was performed on 28 August 2015. A descriptive analysis was performed and quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for observational studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for trials. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 859 publications in the initial search, of which 24 met inclusion criteria for full-text review. Of these, we were able to obtain data on the outcomes of interest for 15 publications. CONCLUSIONS: The review underscores the limited nature of the evidence; definitive conclusions are elusive. However, the promising results of RHT in the setting of intravesical chemotherapy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy show a trend towards legitimate efficacy.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".