MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W91435995

Tumour extent and T stage of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomographic findings.

2000· article· en· W91435995 on OpenAlexaff
P Y Poon, Victoria Tsang, P L Munk

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNasopharyngeal carcinomaMagnetic resonance imagingStage (stratigraphy)RadiologyComputed tomographicComputed tomographyCarcinomaNuclear medicineT-stageTomographyRadiation therapyCancerPathologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in defining the T stage and full tumour extent of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients with pathologically proven nasopharyngeal carcinoma underwent MRI and CT examinations within 2 weeks of each other. Contrast medium was used in both examinations. The T stage and full tumour extent according to MRI and CT were compared. RESULTS: In 32 patients MRI and CT findings agreed completely. MRI findings resulted in assignment of a higher stage than CT findings in another 8 patients. In the remaining 8 patients MRI showed wider tumour spread than CT, although there was no discordance in the T stage assigned. CONCLUSION: When compared with CT in defining the full tumour extent and assigning the T stage in 48 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma, MRI showed more extensive disease in 16 patients, including 8 in whom the T stage was revised upward. Therapy was altered as a result of the MRI findings.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207