MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213423694 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059484

Consolidation chemotherapy in postmolar low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a systematic review protocol

2022· review· en· W4213423694 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mariza Branco-Silva, Izildinha Maestá, Kevin M. Elias, Ross S. Berkowitz, Joélcio Francisco Abbade, Neil S. Horowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINERandomized controlled trialCINAHLSystematic reviewGynecologyFamily medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.015
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.011

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicGestational Trophoblastic Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207