MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Orthovoltage radiotherapy in the management of medial canthal basal cell carcinoma

2013· article· en· W1982068719 on OpenAlexaff
Hatem Krema, Evelyn Herrmann, Alisha Albert-Green, David G. Payne, Normand Laperrière, Caroline Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBasal cell carcinomaRadiation therapyBasal cellSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To report the local control and complication rates of orthovoltage radiotherapy in the management of medial canthal basal cell carcinoma (BCC). METHODS: The medical records of all patients treated with medial canthal BCC between 1998 and 2010, with orthovoltage radiotherapy as primary treatment, adjuvant treatment after incomplete surgical excision, or for tumour recurrence following surgical excision, were retrospectively studied. The actuarial rates of tumour control and complications were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Main outcome measures were rates of tumour control and radiation complications. RESULTS: 90 patients were included with a median follow-up of 80 months. Tumour control rate at 10 years for the entire cohort was 94% (95% CI 84% to 98%). Tumour control rates showed no statistically significant differences among different treatment intents or treatment radiation energies. Radiation-related complication rates included loss of eyelashes in 59% (95% CI 48% to 66%), epiphora 51% (95% CI 39% to 62%), dry eye 14% (95% CI 3% to 35%) and conjunctival scarring 11% (95% CI 1% to 33%). No patient developed long-term corneal complications. CONCLUSIONS: Orthovoltage radiotherapy can be a reliable therapeutic alternative for selected medial canthal BCCs, which can be contained within the prescribed radiation field, with anticipated radiation-related toxicities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207