MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226151179 · doi:10.1080/02656736.2021.1923836

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for colorectal liver metastases

2022· review· en· W4226151179 on OpenAlexaff
Issa Mohamad, Aisling Barry, Laura A. Dawson, Ali Hosni

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hyperthermia · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAblative caseRadiofrequency ablationRadiosurgeryRadiation therapyStereotactic radiation therapyCryotherapyRadiologyModalitiesQuality of life (healthcare)AblationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multidisciplinary case discussion of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has led to improved selection of more complex patients with the oligometastatic disease for treatment with surgical resection, locally ablative therapy or a combination of local modalities to improve the therapeutic ratio in patients with CRLM. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a noninvasive local therapy with a potential role in the management of oligometastatic CRLM and may be considered as an alternate choice to other locally ablative therapies like radiofrequency ablation, radioembolization, chemoembolization or surgery or after the failure of other local treatment or in combination with surgery. Existing evidence reports for highly selected patients with CRLM, one to five fractions SBRT can be delivered safely, with satisfactory long-term local control, overall survival and quality of life. This review article will present the evidence of SBRT in this setting.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
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

Citations143
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HyperthermiaSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207