MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943468033 · doi:10.1002/rcs.2006

Robotic sentinel node mapping in clinical stage 1 endometrial cancer using methylene blue dyes using the robotic platform

2019· article· en· W2943468033 on OpenAlexaff
Tien Le, Shannen McDonald, Rajiv Samant, Michael Fung Kee Fung

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometrial cancerMedicineStage (stratigraphy)LymphadenectomySentinel lymph nodeMetastasisRadiologyCancerSurgeryInternal medicineBreast cancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Endometrial cancer is a surgically staged cancer. We examined our preliminary experience with sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in early stage endometrial cancer using methylene blue dyes. METHOD: Retrospective review of all clinically stage 1 endometrial cancer staged surgically using the robotic platform. Logistic regression models were built to predict nodal metastasis taking into account age, grade, histology, depth of myometrial invasion, cervical involvement, and use of SLN mapping. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-nine patients were reviewed. Sixty patients had SLN mapping (13%). Four hundred nine patients underwent standard lymphadenectomy with five documented nodal metastasis (1.2%). Five nodal metastasis (8.3%) were seen in the SLN patients. In the logistic model, the application of SLN mapping was significantly associated with diagnosed nodal metastasis (OR 7.74; 95% CI, 2.04-29.3; P = .003) together with nonendometroid histology (OR 5.05; 95% CI, 1.27-20.12; P = .022). CONCLUSION: SLN mapping protocol using methylene blue significantly identifies more nodal metastasis than standard lymphadenectomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted SurgerySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207