Sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer – robotic vs. laparoscopic detection system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparison of systems to detect sentinel lymph node in endometrial carcinoma using indocyanine green. Robotic Firefly Da Vinci fluorescence imaging system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) vs. laparoscopic Novadaq Pinpoint near-infrared imaging system (Novadaq, Ontario, Canada). MATERIAL AND METHOD: Fifteen patients with stage I endometrial cancer underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy after intracervical application of indocyanine green. For all of them, the detection was performed sequentially using both evaluated devices. The detection rate, identification match and extent of imaging of the lymphatic system were evaluated. RESULTS: The detection rate of both systems verified on a set of patients was identical, the detected sentinel nodes were identical, and the lymphatic system was shown to the same extent. The quality of the display and overall user-friendliness is different due to the applied technologies. CONCLUSION: Both systems used in minimally invasive surgery provide excelent perioperative imaging of the lymphatic system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".