[The outcome of surgical treatment and prognostic factors of pulmonary metastases; differences between carcinomas, sarcomas and germ cell tumors].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have performed pulmonary metastasectomy on 97 patients with various malignant tumors. We analyzed the outcome of surgical treatment and prognostic factors. Survival of patients undergoing metastasectomy was significantly different according to the type of malignant tumor. The patients with carcinomas had a good survival when they had 3 years or longer disease free interval (DFI) and no other lesion except the lungs. Those with sarcomas were good survivors, who had a solitary pulmonary lesion, 1 years or longer DFI, and had no symptom originating from pulmonary metastases. Survival of patients with germ cell tumors was significantly superior to other 2 types, and factors such as an existence of extra-pulmonary metastatic lesions, respiratory symptoms and a length of DFI had no impact on the chance of their survival. These results suggest that we should decide the indication for metastasectomy on patients according to their types of malignant tumor.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".