Sublobar Resection of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Wedge Resection vs. Segmentectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death. The mainstay treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), particularly in the early stages, is surgical resection. Traditionally, lobectomy has been considered the gold-standard technique. Sublobar resection includes segmentectomy and wedge resection. Compared to lobectomy, these procedures have been viewed as a compromise procedure, reserved for those with poor cardiopulmonary function or who are poor surgical candidates for other reasons. However, with the advances in imaging and surgical techniques, the subject of sublobar resection as a curative treatment is being revisited. Many studies have now shown segmentectomy to be equivalent to lobectomy in patients with small (<2.0 cm), peripheral NSCLC. However, there is a mix of evidence when it comes to wedge resection and its suitability as a curative procedure. At this time, until more data can be found, segmentectomy should be considered before wedge resection for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".