MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764241739 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a5409

Setting the Stage for 2018: How the Changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control<i>Cancer Staging Manual</i>Eighth Edition Impact Radiologists

2017· article· en· W2764241739 on OpenAlexaff
Christine M. Glastonbury, Suresh K. Mukherji, Brian O’Sullivan, William M. Lydiatt

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancer stagingCancerStage (stratigraphy)Head and neck cancerHuman papillomavirusHead and neckBasal cellOncologyRadiologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

of the American Joint Committee on Cancer will be implemented in January 2018. There are multiple changes to the head and neck section of the manual, which will be relevant to radiologists participating in multidisciplinary head and neck tumor boards and reading pretreatment head and neck cancer scans. Human papillomavirus-related/p16(+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma will now be staged separately; this change reflects the markedly better prognosis of these tumors compared with non-human papillomavirus/p16(-) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Nodal staging has dramatically changed so that there are different tables for human papillomavirus/p16(+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, Epstein-Barr virus-related nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and all other head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Extranodal extension of tumor is a new clinical feature for this third staging group. In the oral cavity, the pathologically determined depth of tumor invasion is a new staging criterion, while extrinsic tongue muscle invasion is no longer part of staging. This review serves to educate radiologists on the eighth edition changes and their rationale.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207