Joint IARC/NCI International Cancer Seminar Series Report: expert consensus on future directions for ovarian carcinoma research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, ovarian cancer research has evolved considerably because of the emerging recognition that rather than a single disease, ovarian carcinomas comprise several different histotypes that vary by etiologic origin, risk factors, molecular profiles, therapeutic approaches and clinical outcome. Despite significant progress in our understanding of the etiologic heterogeneity of ovarian cancer, as well as important clinical advances, it remains the eighth most frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide and the most fatal gynecologic cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the United States National Cancer Institute jointly convened an expert panel on ovarian carcinoma to develop consensus research priorities based on evolving scientific discoveries. Expertise ranged from etiology, prevention, early detection, pathology, model systems, molecular characterization and treatment/clinical management. This report summarizes the current state of knowledge and highlights expert consensus on future directions to continue advancing etiologic, epidemiologic and prognostic research on ovarian carcinoma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".