MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407190360 · doi:10.1093/bjs/znae317

Care of neuroendocrine tumours: the Collaborative of sUrgical Teams for NeuroEndocrine Tumors (CUTNETs)

2024· article· en· W4407190360 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Hallet, Joël Shapiro, Andreas Pascher, Sébastien Gaujoux, Alexandra Gangi, Ismael Domínguez-Rosado, Massimo Falconi, Stefano Partelli, Detlef K. Bartsch, Sean Bennett, Lev D. Bubis, Farhana Shariff, Marie Cappelle, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Callisia Clarke, Els Nieveen van Djikum, Andrea Frilling, Giuseppe Kito Fusai, Daryl Gray, Thilo Hackert, Anna Nießen, James R. Howe, Jessica Maxwell, Léamarie Meloche‐Dumas, Frédéric Mercier, Rodney F. Pommier, Marco Del Chiaro, Alain Sauvanet, Safi Domak, Kjetil Søreide, Peter Stålberg, Olov Norlén, Stefan Stättner, Heather Stuart

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeuroendocrine tumorsNeuroendocrine tumourGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a diverse group of malignancies with rising incidence and complex behaviours1,2. Although surgical management is a critical component of NET care, most data on NET surgery derive from single-centre experiences, limiting the generalizability of findings and contributing to a fragmented evidence base3–5. Robust, translatable clinical data that can improve surgical care for NETs are needed. Given the uncommon and heterogeneous nature of NETs, a collaborative international approach appears essential to enhance understanding and refine best practices. In 2024, an international group of NETs surgeons created CUTNETs (Collaborative of sUrgical Teams for NeuroEndocrine Tumors) to address these challenges through clinical and research collaboration.<br/><br/>As a first step, [...]

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.318
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of surgerySame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207