MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rhabdomyosarcoma of the parotid region occurring in childhood and adolescence

2001· article· en· W1518142462 on OpenAlexaff
David Walterhouse, Alberto S. Pappo, K. Scott Baker, David M. Parham, James R. Anderson, Sarah S. Donaldson, Charles N. Paidas, Richard B. Womer, William M. Crist

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineRhabdomyosarcomaParotid glandRadiation therapyRadiologyPathologySarcoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) of the parotid region is rare and to the authors' knowledge little information is available regarding the site of tumor origin, clinical presentation, and outcome in these patients. Therefore, the authors reviewed the files of all patients with RMS of the parotid region who were registered on the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Studies (IRS) I-IV. METHODS: Patient charts and the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group (IRSG) database were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients presenting with a mass in the parotid region were identified. None of the tumors was localized exclusively to the parotid gland, so the primary site was referred to as the "parotid region." The tumor invaded a parameningeal site in 30 patients. These cases have been designated as parameningeal-parotid tumors to distinguish them from 32 cases that did not invade a parameningeal site and were designated as nonparameningeal-parotid tumors. The majority of patients had Group III tumors in both the nonparameningeal-parotid and parameningeal-parotid subgroups. However, although there were 16 patients with Group I or II tumors in the nonparameningeal-parotid subgroup, no patients with Group I or II tumors were found in the parameningeal-parotid subgroup (P = 0.001). Fifty-six of 62 patients (90%) received radiotherapy. The parameningeal primary site designation resulted in intensification of both chemotherapy and radiotherapy for patients with parameningeal-parotid RMS. The 5-year failure-free survival rate was 81% and the 5-year survival rate was 84%. There were no deaths reported among patients with Group I or II tumors. The 5-year failure-free survival did not appear to differ when comparing patients with parameningeal-parotid tumors with patients with nonparameningeal-parotid tumors (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment as defined by the IRS protocols has been reported to be highly effective for patients with RMS of the parotid region. Outcome for the more aggressively treated patients with parameningeal-parotid RMS appears similar to that for patients with nonparameningeal-parotid RMS.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207