MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2546059200 · doi:10.3747/co.23.3042

Follow-Up of Patients Who Are Clinically Disease-Free after Primary Treatment for Fallopian Tube, Primary Peritoneal, or Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Program in Evidence-Based Care Guideline Adaptation

2016· article· en· W2546059200 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tien Le, Erin B. Kennedy, Jason Dodge, Laurie Elit

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityCancer Care OntarioOttawa Hospital
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineContext (archaeology)Randomized controlled trialFallopian tubeHazard ratioOvarian cancerCancerMEDLINECochrane LibraryAsymptomaticGynecologyHealth careConfidence intervalInternal medicineFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A need for follow-up recommendations for survivors of fallopian tube, primary peritoneal, or epithelial ovarian cancer after completion of primary treatment was identified by Cancer Care Ontario’s Program in Evidence-Based Care. Methods: We searched for existing guidelines, conducted a systematic review (medline, embase, and cdsr, January 2010 to March 2015), created draft recommendations, and completed a comprehensive review process. Outcomes included overall survival, quality of life, and patient preferences. Results: The Cancer Australia guidance document Follow Up of Women with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer was adapted for the Ontario context. A key randomized controlled trial found that the overall survival rate did not differ between asymptomatic women who received early treatment based on elevated serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125) alone and women who waited for the appearance of clinical symptoms before initiating treatment (hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.20; p = 0.85); in addition, patients in the delayed treatment group reported good global health scores for longer. No randomized studies were found for other types of follow-up. We recommend that survivors be made aware of the potential harms and benefits of surveillance, including a discussion of the limitations of CA125 testing. Women could be offered the option of no formal follow-up or a follow-up schedule that is agreed upon by the woman and her health care provider. Education about the most common symptoms of recurrence should be provided. Alternative models of care such as nurse-led or telephone-based follow-up (or both) could be emerging options. Conclusions: The recommendations provided in this guidance document have a limited evidence base. Recommendations should be updated as further information becomes available.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→