MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROCEDIMENTOS E EVOLUÇÃO NO DIAGNÓSTICO DA LLA: UMA REVISÃO BIBLIOGRÁFICA

2023· article· pt· W4387265992 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Foco · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A LLA se caracteriza como uma neoplasia hematopoiética heterogênea maligna na qual ocorre uma proliferação descontrolada de células sanguíneas, resultando no acúmulo de células jovens na medula óssea. Com o avanço do diagnostico, o hemograma é o primeiro passo para diagnosticar LLA, com isso exame de imunofenotipagem também se torna eficaz. Esta imunofenotipagem é realizada pela técnica de citometria de fluxo, e tem auxiliado na orientação terapêutica. O presente estudo teve por objetivo entender a importância da avaliação laboratorial para o diagnóstico precoce da LLA, e o impacto que uma boa avaliação pode incidir sobre o diagnóstico. Este presente trabalho consistiu em uma pesquisa bibliográfica qualitativa sobre os métodos de diagnósticos da LLA no Brasil. Analisando a perspectiva clínica tem vários métodos de diagnósticos para a LLA, e com isso realçar a importante dos diagnósticos clínicos e o aperfeiçoamento frequente dos métodos.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.077

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.302 · 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