Impact of the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer in 2003–2004: Population‐based study from the Province of Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) became the standard of care for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancers based on clinical trials but its effectiveness at the community level is not reported. METHODS: We conducted a population-based comparative effectiveness study of all 571 patients with oropharyngeal cancer in Ontario Canada (2003-2004) that describes the patients and the treatments and compares concurrent CRT to radiotherapy (RT) alone. RESULTS: When comparing the outcomes (CRT vs RT) for all patients or patients eligible for either treatment, for patients of centers with the "higher use" of CRT to patients of the 'lower use' centers and comparing all centers, we found no overall or disease-specific advantage to CRT over RT alone. There was also no difference in recurrence-free survival, pattern of recurrences, or distant control. CONCLUSION: In Ontario (2003-2004), in daily clinical practice, the addition of concurrent CRT to RT had little impact on survival in patients with oropharyngeal 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".