MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509908371 · doi:10.21873/anticanres.10982

Osteogenic Sarcoma: A 21st Century Review

2016· review· en· W2509908371 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnticancer Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteosarcomaOsteoidSarcomaMedicineChemotherapyPrimary boneBone SarcomaCancer researchOncologyPrimary tumorCancerInternal medicinePathologyMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared to other bone tumors, bone osteogenic sarcoma (BOS) continues to confer a much grimmer prognosis as the survival benefit of traditional chemotherapy treatment regimens is still unsatisfactory. Chemotherapy was demonstrated to be effective in eradicating both primary tumor and pulmonary metastases in the last century, with effective agents used in various combination regimens having changed the survival rate from less than 10% to 75%. The most common primary bone cancer, BOS is conventionally a primary intramedullary high-grade malignant tumor characterized by malignant cells forming immature bone or osteoid. BOS is a disease with diverse morphological presentations. The treatment of all morphological variants seem to have been the same for over 30 years. The introduction of antiproliferative agents such as insulin growth factor-binding protein 3 hold promise of a potentially veritable therapeutic target. In this review, we highlight recent data on osteosarcoma to consolidate a platform able to connect bench and bedside.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.007

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.301 · 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