Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck in Ontario, Canada, and in Southeastern Norway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Reports comparing case mix, treatments, and outcomes between different countries are uncommon in head and neck oncology. Prospective databases of unselected patients from regional cancer centers in southeastern Ontario, Canada, and southeastern Norway were compared. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study of two prospective databases. METHODS: The case mix, treatments, and disease-specific mortality were compared using frequency tables, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and the log rank test. RESULTSThe case mix, except for differences in oral cavity, oropharynx, and the recorded tumor (T) category, was similar, and the treatments were different. There was no statistical difference in overall survival for all patients, as well as for some sites. CONCLUSIONS: The results of treatments, based on different overall treatment polices, for all patients were similar. The differences in recorded T category with no statistical difference in overall survival suggest a difference in staging assignment and raises a question about the reliability of the TNM staging process.
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".