MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2725122968 · doi:10.18192/uojm.v7i1.2019

Ensuring a Safe and Qualitative Diagnostic Biopsy for Retroperitoneal Sarcomas

2017· article· en· W2725122968 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kristin Ambacher, Andrea Marie Ibrahim, Carolyn Nessim

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsyMedicineSarcomaRadiologyGeneral surgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retroperitoneal sarcomas represent one third of neoplasms in the retroperitoneum and as such are an important entity when evaluating masses in this area. They are often identified incidentally as they present with non-specific symptoms and are only detectable on physical exam when they have grown to a large size. This group of tumours is a challenge for physicians as it encompasses over 50 different histological subtypes and the course of treatment greatly depends on histopathological diagnosis. Biopsy of these lesions has recently become standard of care when evaluating a suspected retroperitoneal sarcoma. However, historically, there has been specula- tion over whether this practice promotes needle tract seeding resulting in local recurrence which has resulted in limited research on the topic. As such, there is a lack of literature describing the best parameters for a safe and effective biopsy of these lesions. Our ongoing research aims to identify biopsy parameters which yield a safe and qualitative diagnostic biopsy while minimizing complications and local recurrence with the goal of consistent and quality care for all patients presenting with retroperitoneal lesions. RÉSUMÉ Les sarcomes rétropéritonéaux constituent un tiers des néoplasmes du rétropéritoine, et représentent ainsi une entité importante lors de l’évaluation de masses dans cet espace. Ils sont souvent découverts fortuitement puisqu’ils se manifestent par des symptômes non spécifiques et sont seulement décelables à l’examen physique lorsqu’ils atteignent une taille considérable. Ce groupe de tumeurs représente un défi pour les médecins, car il comprend plus de 50 différents sous-types histologiques et le traitement dépend largement du diagnostic histopathologique. La biopsie de ces lésions est récemment devenue la norme en matière de soins pour l’évaluation d’un sarcome rétropéritonéal soupçonné. Toutefois, par le passé, certains ont suggéré que cette pratique puisse possiblement disséminer le cancer et causer une récidive locale, ce qui a limité la recherche sur le sujet. Ainsi, il existe un manque de littérature décrivant les paramètres optimaux pour effectuer une biopsie sécuritaire et efficace de ces lésions. Notre recherche en cours vise à identifier les paramètres de biopsie qui produisent une biopsie diagnostique sécuritaire et qualitative, tout en minimisant les complications et les risques de récidive locale, dans le but de fournir des soins uniformes et de haute qualité à tous les patients avec des lésions rétropéritonéales.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of MedicineSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207