Use of Indocyanine Green for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy: Case Series and Methods Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is indicated for patients with biopsy-proven thickness melanoma greater than 1.0 mm. Use of lymphoscintigraphy along with vital blue dyes is the gold standard for identifying sentinel lymph nodes intraoperatively. Indocyanine green (ICG) has recently been used as a method of identifying sentinel lymph nodes. We herein describe a case series of patients who have successfully undergone ICG-assisted sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma. We compare 2 imaging systems that are used for ICG-assisted sentinel lymph node biopsy. METHODS: Fourteen patients underwent ICG-assisted sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma using the SPY Elite system (Novadaq, Mississigua, Canada) and the Hamamatsu PDE-Neo probe system (Mitaka USA, Park City, Utah). We analyzed costs for 2 systems that utilize ICG for sentinel lymph node biopsies. RESULTS: Intraoperative use of ICG for sentinel lymph node biopsies was successful in correctly identifying sentinel lymph nodes. There was no difference between the Hamamatsu PDE-Neo probe and SPY Elite systems in the ability to detect sentinel lymph nodes; however, the former was associated with a lower operating cost and ease of use compared with the latter. CONCLUSION: ICG-assisted sentinel lymph biopsy using the SPY Elite or the Hamamatsu PDE-Neo probe systems for melanoma are comparable in terms of sentinel node detection. The Neo probe system delivers pertinent clinical data with the advantages of lower cost and ease of operation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".