Long-term survival rates of laryngeal cancer patients treated by radiation and surgery, radiation alone, and surgery alone : studied by lognormal and Kaplan-Meier survival methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Validation of the use of the lognormal model for predicting long-term survival rates using short-term follow-up data. METHODS: 907 cases of laryngeal cancer were treated from 1973-1977 by radiation and surgery (248), radiation alone (345), and surgery alone (314), in registries of Connecticut and Metropolitan Detroit of the SEER database, with known survival status up to 1999. Phase 1 of this study used the minimum chi-square test to assess the goodness of fit of the survival times of those who died with disease to a lognormal distribution. Phase 2 used the maximum likelihood method to estimate long-term survival rates using short-term follow-up data. In order to validate the lognormal model, the estimated long-term cancer-specific survival rates (CSSR) were compared with the values calculated by the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method using long-term data. RESULTS: The 25-year CSSR were predicted to be 72%, 68% and 65% for treatments by radiation and surgery, by radiation alone, and by surgery alone respectively, using short-term follow-up data by the lognormal model. Corresponding results calculated by the KM method were: 72+/-3%, 68+/-3% and 66+/-4% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The lognormal model was validated for the prediction of the long-term survival rates of laryngeal cancer patients treated by these different methods. The lognormal model may become a useful tool in research on outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".