Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To study the clinical features and management of borderline ovarian tumor.Methods:Aretrospective survey was conducted in 24 patients with borderline ovarian tumor diagnosed between February 2004 and May 2011.Results:Mean age was 40.5 years.17 cases(70.8%) were in stageⅠ,9 patients(37.5%) had mucinous borderline tumors,15 patients(62.5%) serous.3 case(12.5%) developed a recurrence.All patients were operated,3 received postoperative chemotherapy.Of the 13 patients who underwent conservative management,1 patients delivered babies.Conclusions:Ovarian borderline epithelial tumor appears to have a favorable prognosis,surgery is the proved only effective treatment till now.As to young cases having bearing demand, Conservative surgery may be opetated.Conservative surgery is proper treatment for young women with borderline ovary tumors in stageⅠ,but careful follow-up will be required to detect tumor recurrence.But for patients of stageⅡand beyond,radical operation should be done in order to reduce the recurrence.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".