MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DOENÇA TROFOBLÁSTICA GESTACIONAL: REVISÃO DE LITERATURA

2024· article· pt· W4400914418 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Garcia Mendes, Elisa Rocha Oliveira Figueiredo, Caroline Kíssilla Pereira Pascoal, Karen Cristina Viegas Rodrigues Albuquerque

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Foco · 2024
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des Laurentides
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A doença trofoblástica gestacional (DTG) é dividida em um amplo grupo de alterações que vem a partir dos tecidos que revestem as velocidades corais, isto é, o trofoblasto, visto que se multiplica de forma anormal anatomopatologicamente. Dessa maneira, a DTG é classificada em formas benignas, que compreendem as molas hidatiformes completa e parcial, e malignas, ou seja, a neoplasia trofoblástica gestacional (NTG), que são divididas em coriocarcinoma gestacional, tumor trofoblástico do sítio placentário e tumor trofoblástico epitelioide. O objetivo deste trabalho é investigar os principais aspectos clínicos e patológicos da DTG por meio de uma revisão abrangente da literatura científica, diferenciando as formas benignas e invasoras, bem como analisando o impacto do beta-hCG para o diagnóstico e o prognóstico dessa patologia, além de compreender a patogênese e o tratamento dela. Dessa maneira, a gestação com DTG apresenta riscos por causa das complicações que podem surgir e levar a desafios psicossociais com relação à gravidez e até mesmo a mortes da mãe e do feto. Nessa perspectiva, essa patologia deve ser abordada de forma multiprofissional, juntando o cuidado de toda a equipe para melhor prognóstico.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista FocoSame topicGestational Trophoblastic Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207