MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962638778 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/djxfb

Clinical Outcomes and Safety of Boom-Boom Radiotherapy for Ocular Adnexal Lymphoma: A Systematic Review

2025· other· en· W6962638778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapySystematic reviewScopusData extractionInclusion and exclusion criteriaClinical trialMEDLINEMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project aims to conduct a systematic review on the clinical outcomes and safety of Boom-Boom Radiotherapy for ocular adnexal lymphoma (OAL). The review will assess treatment efficacy, toxicity profiles, and long-term patient outcomes. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus and Embase, following PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be predefined to ensure methodological rigor. The risk of bias will be evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and data synthesis will include qualitative synthesis if applicable. This OSF project serves as a transparent repository for the protocol, search strategy, data extraction forms, and statistical analysis.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2340.286

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)French-language works237,207