MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515779315 · doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000346

Radiotherapy approaches for locally advanced penile cancer

2016· review· en· W2515779315 on OpenAlexaff
Juanita Crook

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenile cancerMedicineRadiation therapyCancerRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As penile cancer is an uncommon malignancy in the Western society, randomized trials to address the controversies in management have not previously been undertaken. The incorporation of multidisciplinary approaches in the management of advanced penile carcinoma has largely borrowed evidence from analogous malignancies in the anogenital region. This review is being undertaken in preparation for the international launch of InPACT, the International Penile Advanced Cancer Trial, a collaborative effort from European and North American trialists. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature supporting the development of this trial is reviewed, along with the trial design, goals, and endpoints. Level one evidence of the benefits of combined chemo-radiotherapy in the management of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix, oropharynx, vulva, and anal canal has led to the introduction of this approach for advanced penile cancer. InPACT will compare chemo-radiotherapy to the traditional surgical approach, with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. SUMMARY: InPACT will define the roles and optimal sequencing of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy in advanced penile cancer. In the meantime, this collaborative effort among the major research consortiums of Europe and North America lends credibility to the application of this evidence to the penile site.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in UrologySame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207