General information of the included studies.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div> Introduction Lung cancer is the primary cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The most effective treatment for early stage (I-II) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical resection. However, the extent of mediastinal lymph nodes removal required and the impact of their removal remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the postoperative complications in patients with stage I-II NSCLC who received mediastinal lymph node dissection (MLND) or mediastinal lymph node sampling (MLNS). Methods and analysis According to the predefined inclusion criteria, we will conduct a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining the postoperative complications of MLND compared to MLNS in patients with stage I-II NSCLC. The search will be performed across multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, Sinomed, VIP, Duxiu, and Web of Science from inception to February 2024. Additionally, relevant literature references will be retrieved and hand searching of pertinent journals will be conducted. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment will be performed by two independent reviewers. Review Manager 5.4 will be applied in analyzing and synthesizing. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used to assess the quality of evidence for the whole RCTs and used Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the methodologic quality of observational studies. Ethics and dissemination This study did not include personal information. Ethical approval was not required for this study. This study is based on a secondary analysis of the literature, so ethical review approval is not required. The final report will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion This systematic review will contribute to compare the safety and survival benefits of these two surgical techniques for the treatment of early stage NSCLC, to further guide the selection of surgical approaches. Trial registration The protocol of the systematic review has been registered on Open Science Framework, with a registration number of DOI <a href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N2Y5D" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N2Y5D</a>. </div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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 it