Singapore Cancer Network (SCAN) Guidelines for Systemic Therapy of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The SCAN pancreatic cancer workgroup aimed to develop Singapore Cancer Network (SCAN) clinical practice guidelines for systemic therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in Singapore. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The workgroup utilised a modified ADAPTE process to calibrate high quality international evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to our local setting. RESULTS: Five international guidelines were evaluated- those developed by the National Cancer Comprehensive Network (2014), the European Society of Medical Oncology (2012), Cancer Care Ontario (2013), the Japan Pancreas Society (2013) and the British Society of Gastroenterology, Pancreatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (2005). Recommendations on the management of resected, borderline resectable, locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were developed. CONCLUSION: These adapted guidelines form the SCAN Guidelines for systemic therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in Singapore.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".