MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586012887

Indications for the use of external beam radiation in thyroid cancer

2014· article· en· W2586012887 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith Giuliani, James D. Brierley

Bibliographic record

VenueVia Medica Journals · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyThyroid cancerExternal beam radiotherapyThyroidCancerAnaplastic thyroid cancerMedullary thyroid cancerThyroid carcinomaOncologySurgeryInternal medicineBrachytherapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of review. The role of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in the management of thyroid cancer is not clearly defined. In the absence of randomized studies, the review aims to identify any recent literature that helps define the role. Recent findings. In differentiated thyroid cancer, single institutional studies report durable locoregional disease control in patients considered to be at high risk of local relapse after EBRT and recent guidelines are consistent in their recommendations. In medullary thyroid cancer, the evidence is more limited but again there is benefit in selected cases. In anaplastic thyroid cancer, multimodality therapy is superior to surgery alone in achieving local control and possibly survival but the benefit must be weighed against the toxicity. Newer radiation techniques may help reduce toxicity. Summary. Although surgery is the main treatment for thyroid carcinoma, EBRT has a role in the adjuvant setting following surgery in high-risk patients and in unresectable cancer. Advances in the delivery of external beam radiotherapy, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces toxicity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVia Medica JournalsSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207