Prognostic factors for T1–T2 squamous cell carcinomas of the mobile tongue: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify factors predicting poor prognosis at the time of early oral tongue carcinoma diagnosis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out on 70 patients with T1 or T2 squamous cell carcinoma of the mobile tongue treated with primary surgical treatment. RESULTS: In all, 47% of patients received adjuvant treatment. Local recurrence was observed in 29% and regional recurrence in 26%. With a median follow-up of 7.3 years for living patients, 5-year actuarial overall, disease-specific, and disease-free survival rates were 48%, 61%, and 42%, respectively. The presence of poor histological differentiation increased the overall risk of death. Tumor thickness and posterior lingual location independently increased overall and disease-specific risk of death. Concurrent or previous diagnosis of oral lichen significantly increased the risk of disease-specific death and disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This study corroborates several known prognostic factors and indicates that diagnosis of oral lichen planus may be a risk factor for disease recurrence.
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".