MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109479619 · doi:10.1007/s00259-020-05112-2

EANM/SNMMI practice guideline for [18F]FDG PET/CT external beam radiotherapy treatment planning in uterine cervical cancer v1.0

2020· article· en· W3109479619 on OpenAlexaff
Judit A. Adam, Annika Loft, Cyrus Chargari, Roberto C. Delgado Bolton, Elisabeth Kidd, Heiko Schöder, Patrick Veit‐Haibach, Wouter V. Vogel

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSiemens HealthineersUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdam University Medical CentersSociety of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineRadiation therapyMedical physicsCervical cancerExternal beam radiotherapyRadiation treatment planningRadiologyNuclear medicinePET-CTPositron emission tomographyCancerBrachytherapyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: F]FDG PET/CT in advanced uterine cervical cancer for external beam radiotherapy planning with emphasis on staging and target definition, mostly in FIGO stages IB3-IVA and IVB, treated with curative intention. METHODS: Guidelines from related fields, relevant literature and leading experts have been consulted during the development of this guideline. As this field is rapidly evolving, this guideline cannot be seen as definitive, nor is it a summary of all existing protocols. Local variations should be taken into consideration when applying this guideline. CONCLUSION: The background, common clinical indications, qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, procedure / specifications of the examination, documentation / reporting and equipment specifications, quality control and radiation safety in imaging is discussed with an emphasis on the multidisciplinary approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207