Role of endolaryngeal surgery (with or without laser) versus radiotherapy in the management of early (T1) glottic cancer: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment options for early glottic cancer include transoral microsurgery or radiotherapy (RT). There is continuing debate about which is the superior treatment. METHODS: The literature was searched from 1996 to 2011 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. A quality assessment of each included study was conducted and reported. RESULTS: There is no evidence in favor of 1 treatment modality when considering likelihood of local control or overall survival. There is a suggestion that RT may be associated with less measureable perturbation of voice as compared to surgery, but no significant differences were seen in patient perception. The likelihood of laryngeal preservation may be higher when surgery can be offered as initial treatment. CONCLUSION: For patients with early (T1) glottic cancer, treatment options include the equally effective endolaryngeal surgery, with or without laser, or radiation therapy. The choice between treatment modalities should be based on patient and clinician preferences and general medical condition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".