Significance of the Number and the Location of Metastatic Lymph Nodes in Locally Recurrent or Persistent Cervical Cancer Patients Treated with Salvage Hysterectomy plus Lymphadenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We retrospectively investigated the significance of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with locally recurrent or persistent cervical cancer in a previously irradiated field and subsequently had salvage hysterectomy. Clinical data were obtained from a chart review, and the prognostic impact of the presence, number (1–2 versus ≥3), and location (pelvic versus pelvic plus para-aortic) of lymph node metastasis was investigated by comparing recurrence and survival. In total, 50 patients were included in this study, of which 21 (42.0%) showed pathological evidence of lymph node metastasis (node-positive group). Both the univariate and multivariate analyses showed that lymph node metastasis was an independent prognostic factor for postoperative recurrence (hazard ratio (HR) 5.36; 95% CI 1.41–6.66; p = 0.0020). The predominant sites of recurrence after salvage surgery were the visceral organs and lymph nodes in the node-negative and node-positive groups, respectively. Patients with ≥3 node metastases showed similar survival to those with 1–2 node metastases. Patients with pelvic node metastasis showed similar survival to those with pelvic and para-aortic node metastases. The presence, not number or location, of lymph node metastasis was an independent poor prognostic factor for post-operative recurrence in patients who developed locally recurrent or persistent cervical cancer treated with salvage hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".