MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W165006102

Treatment results of carcinoma in situ of the glottic larynx: 61 patients treated with radiotherapy.

2008· article· en· W165006102 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Charbonneau, Michel Gélinas, Pierre del Vecchio, Louis Guertin, Daniel Larochelle, Jean-Claude Tabet, Denis Souliàres, Danielle Charpentier, Phuc Félix Nguyen-Tân

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyLarynxRadiation therapySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To review the Notre-Dame Hospital experience in the treatment of carcinoma in situ of the glottis by radiotherapy and to evaluate the different factors affecting local control and survival. METHODS: Between January 1990 and June 2002, 61 patients presenting with carcinoma in situ of the glottis were treated with curative intent radiotherapy. No patients received either surgery or chemotherapy in the initial treatment of their cancer. RESULTS: The median follow-up for the entire population was 3.2 years. The local control rate was 96% and 94% at 2 and 5 years, respectively. Overall survival was 100% and 90% at 2 and 5 years, respectively. No statistically significant prognostic factor could be identified either for local control or survival. No patient experienced severe treatment complications or death. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy offers excellent treatment results for carcinoma in situ of the glottic larynx, with few treatment complications. These results are comparable to those published in the literature and justify our choice of primary radiotherapy for carcinoma in situ of the glottis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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