MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046969609 · doi:10.1111/ans.16185

Mucinous appendiceal neoplasms with or without pseudomyxoma peritonei: a review

2020· review· en· W3046969609 on OpenAlexaff
Mikaël Soucisse, Joshua Lansom, Mohammad S. Alshahrani, David L. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueANZ Journal of Surgery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudomyxoma peritoneiMedicineAppendixGeneral surgeryConfusionHistopathologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mucinous appendiceal neoplasms (MANs) are rare tumours and the primary cause of pseudomyxoma peritonei. These tumours have a much more benign course than typical colorectal cancers, generally growing for many years before giving any clinical signs. The spectrum of presentations, tumour stages and the underlying cytology is very wide, warranting from the simplest operation like an appendicectomy to the most complicated operation like a complete cytoreduction surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Fortunately, most patients can be offered a curative treatment, but limiting operative morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes is the biggest challenge in managing these patients. Histopathology is the cornerstone of decision making for MANs, but is also subject to ongoing debate because of a lack of terminology consensus amongst pathologists. Combined with the rarity of this disease, the multiple histopathologic classification updates of MANs explain the ongoing confusion amongst clinicians in regard to individual optimal treatment. This review will cover the most recent histological classification of MANs and attempt to clarify optimal management of patients with different clinical presentation and histologic combinations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueANZ Journal of SurgerySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207