MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391047378 · doi:10.1016/j.clon.2024.01.012

An Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Clinical Practice Guideline: Surveillance Strategies in Patients with Stage I, II, III or Resectable IV Melanoma Who Were Treated with Curative Intent

2024· article· en· W4391047378 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sudha Rajagopal, Xiaomei Yao, Wadid Abadir, Tara Baetz, Alexandra Easson, Gregory Knight, Elaine McWhirter, Carolyn Nessim, Cheryl F. Rosen, A. Sun, Frances C. Wright, Teresa M. Petrella

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaHamilton Health SciencesTrillium Health CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreCredit Valley HospitalImpactGrand River HospitalMcMaster UniversityCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences Centre
FundersCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineStage (stratigraphy)CancerMelanomaClinical PracticeOncologyIntensive care medicineGeneral surgeryInternal medicineFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To make recommendations on managing the surveillance of patients with stage I, II, III or resectable IV melanoma who are clinically free of disease following treatment with curative intent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This guideline was developed by Ontario Health's (Cancer Care Ontario's) Program in Evidence-Based Care and the Melanoma Disease Site Group (including seven medical oncologists, four surgical oncologists, three dermatologists, one radiation oncologist and one patient representative). The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO databases and the main relevant guideline websites were searched. Internal and external reviews were conducted, with final approval by the Program in Evidence-Based Care and the Melanoma Disease Site Group. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was followed, and the Modified Delphi method was used. RESULTS: Based on the current evidence (eight eligible original study papers and four relevant guidelines) and the clinical opinions of the authors of this guideline, the initial recommendations were made. To reach 75% agreement for each recommendation, the Melanoma Disease Site Group (16 members) voted twice and one recommendation was voted on three times. After a comprehensive internal and external review process (including national and international reviewers), 12 recommendations, three weak recommendations and six qualified statements were ultimately made. CONCLUSIONS: After a systematic review, a comprehensive internal and external review process and a consensus process, the current guideline has been created. The guideline authors believe that this guideline will help clinicians, patients and policymakers make well-informed healthcare decisions that will guide them in clinical melanoma surveillance and ultimately assist in improving patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical OncologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207