MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993487250 · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.05.3025

Systemic Therapy in the Palliative Management of Advanced Salivary Gland Cancers

2006· review· en· W1993487250 on OpenAlexaff
Scott A. Laurie, Lisa Licitra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMucoepidermoid carcinomaAdenoid cystic carcinomaSystemic therapySalivary glandRadiation therapyChemotherapyCancerOncologyAdenocarcinomaInternal medicinePalliative careSalivary gland cancerDiseaseCarcinomaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancers of the salivary glands are unusual lesions that vary widely in their histologic appearance and molecular characteristics. Likewise, there is a wide spectrum of biologic behavior, ranging from low-grade, minimally invasive tumors, to highly lethal malignancies. There are few data on the role of systemic therapies in the management of these cancers, and chemotherapy is generally reserved for the palliative management of advanced disease that is not amenable to local therapies such as surgery and/or radiation. The majority of patients for whom systemic therapy is considered will have either adenoid cystic carcinoma, mucoepidermoid carcinoma, or high-grade adenocarcinoma. This article will review the available literature regarding the use of palliative chemotherapy for patients with advanced salivary gland cancer of these histologies, with an emphasis on the potential role of targeted agents. There is a need for a determined, coordinated effort to conduct high-quality clinical trials in patients with these rare cancers.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations293
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207