MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391447886 · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.015

ESGO–ESMO–ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease

2024· article· en· W4391447886 on OpenAlex
Jonathan A. Ledermann, Xavier Matías‐Guiu, Frédéric Amant, Nicole Concin, Ben Davidson, Christina Fotopoulou, Antonio González-Martı́n, Charlie Gourley, Alexandra Léary, Domenica Lorusso, Susana Banerjee, Luis Chiva, David Cibula, Nicoletta Colombo, Sabrina Croce, Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson, Claire Falandry, D. Fischerová, Philipp Harter, Florence Joly, Conxi Lázaro, C.A.R. Lok, Sven� Mahner, Frederik Marmé, Christian Marth, W. Glenn McCluggage, Iain A. McNeish, Philippe Morice, Shibani Nicum, Ana Oaknin, José Alejandro Pérez Fidalgo, Sandro Pignata, Pedro T. Ramírez, Isabelle Ray‐Coquard, Ignacio Romero, Giovanni Scambia, Jalid Sehouli, Ronnie Shapira‐Frommer, Sudha Sundar, David S.P. Tan, Çağatay Taşkıran, Willemien J. van Driel, Ignace Vergote, François Planchamp, Cristiana Sessa, Anna Fagotti

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

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersPharmaMarEuropean Society for Medical OncologyNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNovocureAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineConsensus conferenceVotingDiseaseOvarian cancerStage (stratigraphy)Family medicineMEDLINEOncologyGynecologyInternal medicineCancerPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

•46 participants from 15 countries across Europe, Asia and the USA contributed to the ESGO–ESMO–ESP consensus conference.•Recommendations cover diagnosis and management of early, advanced and recurrent ovarian cancers.•Recommendations are based on available data and/or the experts’ collective, multidisciplinary opinions and experience.•The results, including questions, recommendations and supporting evidence for each recommendation, are detailed here. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society of Pathology held a consensus conference (CC) on ovarian cancer on 15-16 June 2022 in Valencia, Spain. The CC panel included 44 experts in the management of ovarian cancer and pathology, an ESMO scientific advisor and a methodologist. The aim was to discuss new or contentious topics and develop recommendations to improve and harmonise the management of patients with ovarian cancer. Eighteen questions were identified for discussion under four main topics: (i) pathology and molecular biology, (ii) early-stage disease and pelvic mass in pregnancy, (iii) advanced stage (including older/frail patients) and (iv) recurrent disease. The panel was divided into four working groups (WGs) to each address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above, based on their expertise. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript focuses on the recommendation statements that reached a consensus, their voting results and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.361 · 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