Management of Uveal Melanoma: Updated Cancer Care Alberta Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline update is to reassess and update recommendations in the prior guideline from 2016 on the appropriate management of patients with uveal melanoma. METHODS: In 2021, a multidisciplinary working group from the Provincial Cutaneous Tumour Team, Cancer Care Alberta, Alberta Health Services was convened to update the guideline. A comprehensive review of new research evidence in PubMed as well as new clinical practice guidelines from prominent oncology groups informed the update. An enhancement in methodology included adding levels of evidence and strength of recommendations. The updated guideline was circulated to all members of the Provincial Cutaneous Tumour Team for review and endorsement. RESULTS: New and modified recommendations address provider training requirements, diagnostic imaging for the detection of metastases, neo-adjuvant pre-enucleation radiotherapy, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for radiation retinopathy, genetic prognostic testing, surveillance following definitive local therapy, and systemic therapy for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. DISCUSSION: The recommendations represent evidence-based standards of care agreed to by a large multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".