Volume–outcome associations in head and neck cancer treatment: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of the relative rarity of head and neck malignancies and their complex treatment, some groups have advocated for regionalized care. Studies comparing high- and low-volume centers have demonstrated mixed results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE and EMBASE including all studies examining a volume-outcome relationship in the treatment of patients with head and neck cancer with meta-analysis for long-term survival results. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed for studies that assessed long-term survival. High-volume hospitals (5 studies; hazard ratio [HR], 0.886; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.820-0.956) and high-volume surgeons (2 studies; HR, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.641-0.919) have better overall survival than low-volume hospitals and surgeons, respectively. CONCLUSION: Volume-outcome associations exist for head and neck oncologic procedures, although this has not been fully investigated for salivary gland malignancies. Future quality of care studies in head and neck oncology should focus on processes of care, which may explain this relationship.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it