Evaluation of Chest Radiography versus Chest Computed Tomography in Screening for Pulmonary Malignancy in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of chest radiography versus chest computed tomography (CT) in screening for pulmonary malignancy in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). DESIGN: Retrospective review of imaging. SETTING: Head and neck cancer unit. METHOD: Over a period of 1 year, 26 patients with advanced HNSCC (T3/T4) were screened for pulmonary malignancy with both chest radiography and chest CT prior to definitive therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiologic evidence of malignancy. RESULTS: Twenty patients had a normal chest radiograph and a normal CT scan. Four patients had a normal chest radiograph but an abnormal CT scan. Three of these patients had a pulmonary malignancy and one had a suspicious lesion that resolved following surgery to the index tumour. Two patients had both an abnormal chest radiograph and CT scan. One of these had a pulmonary malignancy and one had a CT-guided biopsy of the chest lesion 4 weeks postoperatively, which was normal. Chest CT scanning therefore identified three chest malignancies that would have been missed by chest radiography alone. CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT is an effective tool in screening for malignant pulmonary disease in patients with advanced head and neck cancer and should be used instead of chest radiography to avoid false-negative results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".