MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399392041 · doi:10.1183/13993003.00332-2024

Surgically resectable nonsmall cell lung cancer: a contemporary approach

2024· review· en· W4399392041 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Frédérique D'Amours, Florence T.H. Wu, Olivia Theisen-Lauk, Elisa Chan, Anna McGuire, Cheryl Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerOncologyInternal medicineGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New treatment paradigms for resectable nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with an emphasis on personalised care and a multidisciplinary approach, have significantly improved patient outcomes. The incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors into neoadjuvant, perioperative and adjuvant treatment algorithms is reshaping the standard of care for resectable NSCLC. Adjuvant targeted therapy trials have also paved the way for a much-needed personalised approach for patients with actionable genomic alterations. Innovative surgical techniques and judicious use of postoperative radiotherapy may mitigate the toxicity associated with a multimodality approach. Amid the many new treatment options, questions remain about the best approach to consider for each patient. Measurement of minimal residual disease and achievement of pathological complete response are emerging biomarkers of interest to help further refine treatment selection. This review summarises the current management of resectable NSCLC, focusing on ongoing and recent advances in surgical approaches, the role of postoperative radiotherapy and the rapidly changing field of systemic therapies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory Journal→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→