Follow-up Recommendations for Completely Resected Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no consensus on optimal follow-up for completely resected gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Published guidelines for follow-up are complex and emphasize closer surveillance in the first 3 years after resection. Neuroendocrine tumors have a different pattern and timescale of recurrence, and thus require more practical and tailored follow-up. The Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumour Collaboration convened an international multidisciplinary expert panel, in collaboration with the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, to create patient-centered follow-up recommendations for completely resected gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. This panel used the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method to generate recommendations. A large international survey was conducted outlining current the surveillance practice of neuroendocrine tumor practitioners and shortcomings of the current guidelines. A systematic review of available data to date was supplemented by recurrence data from 2 large patient series. The resultant guidelines suggest follow-up for at least 10 years for fully resected small-bowel and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and also identify clinical situations in which no follow-up is required. These recommendations stratify follow-up strategies based on evidence-based prognostic factors that allow for a more individualized patient-centered approach to this complex and heterogeneous malignant neoplasm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".