Challenges and opportunities for ovarian cancer management in the epidemic of Covid-19: lessons learned from Wuhan, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
China and the rest of the world are experiencing an outbreak of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Patients with cancer are more susceptible to viral infection and are more likely to develop severe complications, as compared to healthy individuals. The growing spread of COVID-19 presents challenges for the clinical care of patients with gynecological malignancies. Ovarian debulking surgery combined with the frequent need for chemotherapy is most likely why ovarian cancer was rated as the gynecologic cancer most affected by COVID-19. Therefore, ovarian cancer presents a particular challenging task. Concerning the ovarian cancer studies with confirmed COVID-19 reported from large-scale general hospitals in Wuhan, we hold that the treatment plan was adjusted appropriately and an individualized remedy was implemented. The recommendations discussed here were developed mainly based on the experience from Wuhan. We advise that the management strategy for ovarian cancer patients should be adjusted in the light of the local epidemic situation and formulated according to the pathological type, tumor stage and the current treatment phase. Online medical service is an effective and convenient communication platform during the pandemic.
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 | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".