Canadian consensus statement on the management of radioactive iodine–resistant differentiated thyroid cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radioactive iodine-resistant differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIRTC) is an aggressive form of thyroid cancer that is uncommon and heterogeneous in its clinical behavior. With the emergence of more effective systemic therapy, the need for guidance in decision-making was recognized and a consensus committee of national experts was assembled. The consensus committee consisted of 13 clinicians involved in treating RAIRTC from across Canada and included endocrinologists, nuclear medicine physicians, surgeons, and radiation and medical oncologists. Domains of interest were identified by consensus, and evidence gathered using systematic reviews. Consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and management of RAIRTC were developed. It was recognized that the rarity of RAIRTC in practice and heterogeneous patterns of thyroid cancer care could limit access to effective therapy for some RAIRTC patients. This document offers guidance to manage RAIRTC patients in a multidisciplinary manner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".