MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201949467 · doi:10.30683/1927-7229.2019.08.06

Preoperative HE4 Tumor Marker and Prognostic Factors in Endometrial Cancer: Review Article

2019· article· en· W3201949467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrea Espiau Romera, Laura Baquedano, M.J. Puente Luján, R. Laborda Gotor, Leyre Ruiz Campo, Miguel Ángel Ruiz Conde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerTumor markerOncologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of the Review: The aim of the review is to summarize the current evidence of HE4 tumor marker as a prognostic marker of endometrial cancer since it is a novel and not yet validated marker in the management of this neoplasm. Recent Findings: HE4 has been studied as a preoperative prognosis marker and the result is encouraging as it is statistically related to unfavorable prognostic markers in endometrial cancer. Having a preoperative marker that relates with prognosis is a non invasive and cost-effective way to classify the patients before the surgery act. Summary: Clinicians could use HE4 as a prognostic marker to help them in the preoperative decision-making process. Thus, good prognostic patients with a low serum HE4 could have a less invasive surgery avoiding lymphadecnectomy which decrease the morbidity of the procedure and reducing the operative time.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207