MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154279472 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.11732

13. A Navigated Intelligent Knife for Breast Cancer Surgery

2018· article· en· W3154279472 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mark Asselin

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMalignancyBreast tissueSurgeryCancerMedical physicsPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, several treatment options are considered including breast conserving surgery. In this type of surgery, the goal is to completely remove the cancer while leaving as much healthy breast tissue as possible. This is a clinical judgement of high consequence since resecting less tissue is cosmetically appealing but increases the chances of leaving cancer cells behind, known as a positive margin. Conventionally, this operation is performed with an electrocautery – imagine it as an electronic knife – which seals tissue as it cuts and produces small amounts of surgical smoke in the process. In most operating rooms today this smoke is treated as a by product, and it is discarded with no further consideration. But this smoke is rich with useful information; it contains traces of the molecules the knife passed through when the smoke was generated. The intelligent knife (iKnife) analyzes this smoke to determine the pathology of tissue the surgeon’s knife has passed through – whether the tissue is cancerous or not. We have coupled the iKnife with an electromagnetic position tracking system to create a three dimensional spatially resolved malignancy map showing where the surgeon’s knife has encountered cancerous tissue. We have developed a functional prototype and have approval for a first clinical safety and feasibility trial. We hope the spatial map will help surgeons to successfully remove the entire malignancy with the smallest amount of healthy tissue while maintaining negative margins – a successful surgical outcome for the patient.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207