Comparison of outcomes for open versus endoscopic approaches for olfactory neuroblastoma: A systematic review and individual participant data 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: Endoscopic approaches have been adopted as an alternative to craniofacial resection in the surgical management of olfactory neuroblastoma. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL (2000-2014) to compare outcomes for open versus endoscopic approaches. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies containing 609 patients were included. Meta-analysis of (a) all patients, (b) Kadish C/D only, and (c) Hyams III/IV only, failed to show a difference in locoregional control and metastasis-free survival between approaches. However, endoscopic approaches were associated with improved overall survival (OS) for all 3 groups (p = .001, .04, and .001, respectively), and higher disease-specific survival (DSS) for all patients (p = .004) and Hyams III/IV only (p = .002). CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that endoscopic approaches have comparable control rates to open approaches for olfactory neuroblastoma. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E2306-E2316, 2016.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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