Nodal failure after chemo-radiation and MRI guided brachytherapy in cervical cancer: Patterns of failure in the EMBRACE study cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): To investigate the patterns of nodal failure in patients enrolled in the international multicentre EMBRACE study. MATERIALS/METHODS: Nodal disease at diagnosis (N-, N+) and nodal failure were analysed per region (NF) (pelvic (parametrial, common iliac, internal/external iliac), inguinal and para-aortic (PAO)) in 1338 patients. Treatment consisted of chemo-radiation and MRI guided brachytherapy. PAO radiotherapy and/or nodal boost was left to the treating centre. At time of diagnosis 52% of patients had pathologic nodes. Frequency analyses were performed in relation to patient, primary tumour and nodal disease characteristics, and treatment related factors. RESULTS: were reported in 55% and 68% of patients with NF, respectively. Overall NF was reported in 152 patients (11%); 7 and 16% for N- and N+ patients. Of the patients with NF, 41% were located outside the elective target (39% PAO), 40% inside and 35% inside the nodal boost target. Twelve percent of N+ patients that received a nodal boost had a NF inside the nodal boost target. CONCLUSION: Within the EMBRACE study cohort the overall number of patients developing nodal failure is low, significantly lower for N- compared to N+ patients. Pathological nodes at diagnosis are mainly located in the pelvis, whereas nodal failures are more often reported in the PAO region. About 40% of all nodal failures were reported outside the treatment targets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".