Prognostic factors in malignancy of the minor salivary glands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify prognostic factors associated with minor salivary gland malignancies. METHOD: This was a retrospective study of 171 patients. Statistical analysis of both clinical and pathological parameters with survival outcomes was performed. RESULTS: Adenoid cystic carcinoma (46.8%), mucoepidermoid carcinoma (22.8%), and adenocarcinoma (18.7%) were the most common pathologies. The most frequent sites of primary tumor were in the oral cavity (44.4%) and nasal cavity (40.4%). The 5-year and 10-year overall survivals were 73.8% and 58.1%. Disease-specific survivals (DSS) were 78.2% and 66.7% and disease-free survivals (DFS) were 64.8% and 47.5%, respectively. Local recurrence rate was 26.9%, regional recurrence 7%, and distant failure was 18.7%. The grade of tumor was the only factor associated with DSS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Overall and DSS of minor salivary gland malignancies were good. Surgery, either alone or in combination with radiation, was an efficacious treatment modality. High-grade tumors were associated with worse DSF.
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) | 0.000 | 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".