Nodal ratio as an independent predictor of survival in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between nodal ratio and survival in oral cavity carcinomas has recently been proposed, but no prospective evaluations exist. METHODS: We sought to determine, using an institutional database, whether nodal ratio impacts survival in node-positive oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Between 1994 and 2004, 143 new diagnoses of N(1-2) squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity were identified. The mean number of nodes identified was 41.6, and the mean nodal ratio was 9%. Nodal ratio was strongly statistically associated with overall and disease-specific survival in both univariate and multivariate analyses. No other prognostic indicator maintained that degree of statistical significance. Patients could be stratified into low (0% to 6%), moderate (6% to 13%), and high-risk (>13%) groups based on nodal ratio. CONCLUSIONS: In squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, an increased nodal ratio is a strong predictor of decreased survival. Risk of death can be stratified by nodal ratio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".