MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W23747606

Predictors of sentinel lymph node metastasis in melanoma.

2010· article· en· W23747606 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Cadili, Kelly Dabbs

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSentinel lymph nodeMelanomaBreslow ThicknessMetastasisOncologySentinel nodeLymph node metastasisInternal medicineCancerCancer researchBreast cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several studies have examined the correlation between patient and tumour characteristics and sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in patients with melanoma. Although most studies have identified Breslow thickness as an important factor, results for other variables have been conflicting. Much of this variability is probably because of differences in measurement techniques and reporting practices at different institutions. We sought to identify the predictors of SLN melanoma metastasis in our institution and patient population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 348 patients with malignant melanoma who underwent SLN biopsy at a single institution from January 1999 to April 2007. We compared multiple variables related to patient demographics, primary tumour characteristics and SLN characteristics between patients in the positive and negative SLN groups. RESULTS: Breslow thickness and nodular tumour type were independent factors significantly correlated with a positive SLN biopsy result in our study. Head and neck tumour location correlated with a lower likelihood of positive SLN status in univariate but not multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the status of Breslow thickness as a reproducible predictor of positive SLN status. We also found that nodular type was predictive of positive SLN status, an outcome that has not been reported by others.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207