Een nationale praktijkrichtlijn voor de aanpak van cervixkanker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION 6 -- 1.1. SCOPE 6 -- 1.2. EPIDEMIOLOGY 6 -- 2. METHODOLOGY 6 -- 2.1. GENERAL APPROACH 6 -- 2.2. CLINICAL QUESTIONS 6 -- 2.3. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION 7 -- 2.4. LITERATURE SEARCHES 7 -- 2.4.1. Search strategy 7 -- 2.4.2. Quality appraisal 8 -- 2.5. DATA EXTRACTION AND SUMMARY 9 -- 2.6. FORMULATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 9 -- 2.7. EXTERNAL EXPERT MEETING 9 -- 3. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 10 -- 3.1. TREATMENT OF HIGH-GRADE CIN 10 -- 3.1.1. Treatment of CIN2/3 10 -- 3.1.2. Follow up of CIN2/3 13 -- 3.1.3. Role of HPV testing in the follow up after treatment 13 -- 3.1.4. Conclusions 13 -- 3.1.5. Recommendations 14 -- 3.2. DIAGNOSIS AND STAGING OF INVASIVE CERVICAL CANCER 15 -- 3.2.1. FIGO staging 15 -- 3.2.2. Tumour characteristics 16 -- 3.2.3. Lymph node metastases 19 -- 3.2.4. Surgical lymph node staging 24 -- 3.2.5. Distant metastases 25 -- 3.2.6. Global staging accuracy 25 -- 3.2.7. Tumour markers 26 -- 3.2.8. Histopathology 26 -- 3.2.9. Recommendations 27 -- 3.3. TREATMENT OF FIGO STAGE IA CERVICAL CANCER 27 -- 3.3.1. Recommendations 29 -- 3.4. TREATMENT OF NON-METASTATIC CERVICAL CANCER 29 -- 3.4.1. Stage IB1 and IIA1 29 -- 3.4.2. Recommendations 31 -- 3.4.3. Stage IB2, IIA2, IIB, IIIA, IIIB and IVA 31 -- 3.5. MANAGEMENT OF METASTATIC AND RECURRENT DISEASE 36 -- 3.5.1. Surgery 36 -- 3.5.2. Chemotherapy for recurrent and stage IVB 37 -- 3.6. FERTILITY-SPARING TREATMENT 39 -- 3.6.1. Conization 39 -- 3.6.2. Radical vaginal trachelectomy 39 -- 3.6.3. Abdominal radical trachelectomy 40 -- 3.6.4. Fertility-sparing treatment according to tumour size 40 -- 3.6.5. Experimental protocols 41 -- 3.7. TREATMENT OF INVASIVE CANCER DURING PREGNANCY 42 -- 3.8. SEXUAL MORBIDITY AFTER TREATMENT FOR CERVICAL CANCER 43 -- 3.9. FOLLOW-UP AFTER TREATMENT FOR CERVICAL CANCER 45 -- 3.9.1. Follow-up after primary treatment 45 -- 3.9.2. PET for the detection of (local or distant) cervical carcinoma recurrence 45 -- 3.9.3. SCCA for the detection of cervical carcinoma recurrence 46 -- 3.9.4. Vaginal smear for the detection of cervical carcinoma recurrence 47 -- 3.9.5. Recommendations 47 -- 4. APPENDICES 48 -- 4.1. APPENDIX 1: GRADE SYSTEM 48 -- 4.1.1. Levels of evidence 190 48 -- 4.1.2. Down- or upgrading the evidence 191 49 -- 4.1.3. Strength of recommendations 50 -- 4.2. APPENDIX 2: SEARCH STRATEGY 50 -- 4.2.1. OVID Medline 50 -- 4.2.2. PubMed 54 -- 4.2.3. Embase 57 -- 4.3. APPENDIX 3: QUALITY APPRAISAL OF GUIDELINES 67 -- 4.4. APPENDIX 4: QUALITY APPRAISAL CHECKLISTS COCANCPG 70 -- 4.4.1. Systematic reviews 70 -- 4.4.2. Randomised controlled trials 70 -- 4.4.3. Cohort studies 70 -- 4.4.4. Case-control studies 70 -- 4.4.5. Diagnostic accuracy studies 71 -- 4.5. APPENDIX 5: EXTERNAL EXPERT REVIEW 72 -- 4.6. APPENDIX 6: EVIDENCE TABLES 77 -- 4.6.1. Guidelines 77 -- 4.6.2. Additional evidence 91 -- 5. REFERENCES 200
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 | 0.021 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.014 |
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".