The Predictors of Multicentricity in Well-Differentiated Thyroid Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The detection of the multicentericity of thyroid cancer is essential to provide the appropriate surgical decision for the patients aiming to decrease the rate of redo surgery and recurrence Methods: A cohort study was conducted at the surgical unit of the oncology center, Mansoura university on fifty patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer, all of them underwent total thyroidectomy then entire gland dissection technique for histopathological examination. Results: Preoperative radiology revealed unicentric suspicious nodules in 40 cases (80%) and no suspicious nodules in 10 cases (20%). Among the ten patients those showed no suspicious nodules radiologically, multicentricity was confirmed in 5 patients (50%) pathologically, and unicentric tumors was seen in 5 patients (50%). FNAC was done in the 40 mentioned cases and was diagnostic for them as papillary thyroid carcinoma. Among many variants of prediction during searching for the true incidence of multicentricity, only isthmic invasion and, the extra thyroid extension were the significant variants. Conclusion: Among many variants of prediction during searching for the true incidence of multicentricity, only isthmic invasion and, the extra thyroid extension were the significant variants.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".