Consolidation chemotherapy in postmolar low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current evidence remains insufficient to strongly demonstrate the benefits of consolidation chemotherapy to all women with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). This protocol outlines a systematic review to investigate whether consolidation chemotherapy is necessary for all patients with postmolar low-risk GTN after human chorionic gonadotropin normalisation with first-line single-agent chemotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A search string will be used to search the PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Web of Sciences, Scopus, LILACS and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Articles will be screened at the title and abstract level, and then at the full article level by two independent reviewers using inclusion/exclusion criteria. Randomised and non-randomised study designs will be included, while case studies, commentaries, editorials, review articles, animal studies, basic science studies and cross-sectional studies, as well as studies not reporting relapse/recurrence rates and/or whether consolidation chemotherapy was delivered will be excluded. There will be no restrictions on date of publication, geographical location, study setting, or language of publication. The primary outcome is rate of recurrence/relapse. The assessments of randomised controlled trials will be performed using the risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration. Non-randomised studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations (Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal ethical approval is required as all data collected will be secondary data and analysed anonymously. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and at scientific events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164822.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".