[Place of cystoscopy in the staging of cervical cancer].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relevance of cystoscopy in the staging of cervical cancer, when CT and pelvic ultrasound are performed concomitantly. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Seventy one patients investigated and/or treated at Hôtel Dieu hospital in Quebec between 1st July 2000 and 1st May 2002 were included in the study. The results obtained by pelvic ultrasound or CT were compared with those obtained by cystoscopy. RESULTS: Fifty eight patients (81.69%) presented a squamous carcinoma and 13 (18.31%) presented an adenocarcinoma. 25 patients (35.21%) had stage I cancer, 22 (30.99%) had stage II, 18 (25.35%) had stage III and 6 (8.45%) had stage IV. All patients were investigated by cystoscopy; 28 (39.44%) only had CT, 13 (18.31%) only had pelvic ultrasound, and 30 (42.25%) were investigated by both examinations. For stage I, II and III cervical cancer, CT and pelvic ultrasound had a NPV of 100%, while CT had a PPV of 25% for stage III cancer. For stage IV, CT had an NPV of 100%, and CT and pelvic ultrasound had a PPV of 100%. CONCLUSION: Cystoscopy is not useful in the staging of stage I cervical cancer. For stages II, III and IV, cystoscopy is unnecessary in the case of negative CT or pelvic ultrasound. It becomes an essential diagnostic tool in the presence of a doubtful or positive result on CT or pelvic ultrasound.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".