Review of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review the literature on nasopharyngeal carcinoma that has been published within the past 5 years. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a highly morbid disease, and survival is poor. Its management remains extremely difficult, not just for otolaryngologists but for radiation oncologists and medical oncologists, as well. A clear understanding of its etiology is still lacking, but nasopharyngeal carcinoma is widely suspected to be the result of both a genetic susceptibility and exposure to environmental factors or Epstein-Barr virus infection. With no clear cause, treatment is controversial. For example, an optimal radiation regimen has not been determined, reports in the literature regarding the role of chemotherapy for advanced disease are conflicting, and treatment of local recurrences is unsettled. Still, advances in immunologic research and chemotherapy offer hope for better control of the disease. We hope that our assessment of the recent literature will provide otolaryngologists with a more clear understanding of the etiology and management of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".