MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7063821998

新辅助化疗与初始肿瘤细胞减灭术治疗晚期卵巢癌疗效的系统评价

2017· article· zh· W7063821998 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLanzhou University Institutional Repository · 2017
Typearticle
Languagezh
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Identification (biology)Product (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

目的系统评价新辅助化疗与初始肿瘤细胞减灭术在晚期卵巢癌患者中的疗效。方法计算机检索PubMed、 EMbase、Cochrane library、Web of Science、CBM、Google Scholar等数据库,检索时限均从建库至2015年7月,两名研究者依据纳入和排除标准独立筛选文献和提取数据,参照Cochrane系统评价手册5.1.0和NOS(Newcastle-Ottawa Scale)评分分别进行质量评价,并行Meta分析。结果最终纳入3篇高质量随机对照试验(RCT)和4篇前瞻性研究,共2476例患者。对RCT研究进行Meta分析结果显示:新辅助化疗与初始肿瘤细胞减灭术相比,总生存期延长(P<0.001),肿瘤细胞减灭术满意率增高(P<0.001),术后28 d内病死率降低(P=0.002),而无进展生存期(P=0.32),随访6个月(P=0.51)和12个月(P=0.89)的生存质量差异无统计学意义。对前瞻性研究行Meta分析结果显示:新辅助化疗与初始肿瘤细胞减灭术相比,无进展生存期缩短(P<0.001),肿瘤细胞减灭术满意率升高(P<0.001),而手术时间(P=0.84)和住院时间(P=0.23)差异无统计学意义。结论与初始肿瘤细胞减灭术相比,新辅助化疗可延长晚期卵巢癌患者的总生存期,提高肿瘤细胞减灭术满意率,减少术后病死率。此结论尚需更多多中心、高质量的随机对照试验证实。

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.167
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.167
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0180.018
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanzhou University Institutional RepositorySame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207