MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389452916 · doi:10.1002/jso.27550

Sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer: Current evidence and practice

2023· review· en· W4389452916 on OpenAlexaff
Lina Salman, Maria C. Cusimano, Zibi Marchocki, Sarah E. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surgical Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometrial cancerLymphadenectomySentinel lymph nodeLymph nodeHysterectomyRadiologyBiopsyStage (stratigraphy)Sentinel nodeCancerGeneral surgeryBreast cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical staging with total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymph node assessment is the standard of care for patients with clinical early-stage endometrial cancer. Traditionally, complete pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (LND) was performed to assess for nodal metastases; however, numerous prospective studies have demonstrated that sentinel lymph node biopsy has similar diagnostic accuracy, and is an acceptable alternative to complete LND. This has led to a paradigm shift in endometrial cancer staging.

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 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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surgical OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207