MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416264891 · doi:10.1097/meg.0000000000000520

Extranodal extension in N1-adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and papilla of Vater

2015· review· en· W2416264891 on OpenAlexaff
Claudio Luchini, Nicola Veronese, Antonio Pea, Giuseppe Sergi, Enzo Manzato, Alessia Nottegar, Marco Solmi, Paola Capelli, Aldo Scarpa

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioMajor duodenal papillaAdenocarcinomaInternal medicineConfidence intervalOncologyGastroenterologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to investigate the prognostic role of extranodal extension (ENE) of lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (PDAC) and papilla [cancer of the papilla of Vater (CPV)]. A PubMed and SCOPUS search from database inception until 5 January 2015 without language restrictions was conducted. Eligible were prospective studies reporting data on prognostic parameters in individuals with PDAC and/or CPV, comparing participants with the presence of ENE (ENE+) with those with intranodal extension (ENE-). Data were summarized using risk ratios for number of deaths/recurrences and hazard ratios for time-dependent risk related to ENE+, adjusted for potential confounders. ENE was found to be very common in these tumors (up to about 60% in both N1-PDAC and CPV), leading to a significant increased risk for all-cause mortality [risk ratio=1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.35, P=0.003, I(2)=44%; hazard ratio=1.415, 95% CI: 1.215-1.650, P<0.0001, I(2)=0%] and recurrence of disease (risk ratio=1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.40, P=0.02, I(2)=0%). On the basis of our results, in PDAC and CPV, ENE should be considered mandatorily from the gross sampling and pathology report to the oncologic staging and therapeutic approach.

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)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & HepatologySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207