MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100242864

Localization of Bronchial Intraepithelial Neoplastic Lesions by Fluorescence Bronchoscopy*

2014· article· en· W7100242864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsyIntraepithelial neoplasiaAutofluorescenceDysplasiaBronchoscopyLesionCarcinoma in situ
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the treatment of lung cancer, the best outcome is achieved when the lesion is discovered in the intraepithelial (preinvasive) stage. However, intraepithelial neoplastic lesions are difficult to localize by conventional white-light bronchoscopy (WLB). Objective: To determine if autofluorescence bronchoscopy, when used as an adjunct to WLB, could improve the bronchoscopist's ability to locate and remove biopsy specimens from areas suspicious of intraepithelial neoplasia as compared with WLB alone. Method: A multicenter clinical trial was conducted in seven institutions in the United States and Canada. WLB followed by fluorescence examination with the light-induced fluorescence endos¬ copy (LIFE) device was performed in 173 subjects known or suspected to have lung cancer. Biopsy specimens were taken from all areas suspicious of moderate dysplasia or worse on WLB and/or LIFE examination. In addition, random biopsy specimens were also taken from other parts of the bronchial tree. Results: The relative sensitivity ofWLB+LIFE vs WLB alone was 6.3 for intraepithelial neoplastic lesions and 2.71 when invasive carcinomas were also included. The positive predictive value was 0.33 and 0.39 and the negative predictive value was 0.89 and 0.83, respectively, for WLB+LIFE

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207