Guideline pour le diagnostic et le traitement du carcinome intra-canalaire du sein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
But Ce guide de pratique doit donner aux praticiens des informations et des recommandations pour le diagnostic et le traitement du carcinome intracanalaire du sein. Methode La FMH a constitue un groupe de travail compose d’experts de differentes specialites dont la tâche a ete d’elaborer ce guide de pratique. Les recommandations reposent sur une revue systematique de la litterature, repertoriee dans MEDLINE et couvrant la periode de 1989 a 2002. Chacune d’elles a ete jugee pour son degre de certitude selon la classification de la Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination [2]; elle se trouve assortie d’un e1, e2, e3 ou d’un e4. Le degre d’evidence e5, exprimant l’avis consensuel du groupe de travail, n’est pas mentionne. Les recommandations ont ete discutees, puis elles ont ete testees pendant 3 mois par 60 membres de la FMH avant d’etre soumises au comite de la FMH. 1 Societe Suisse de Gynecologie et Obstetrique (SSGO)
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
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".