Radiotherapy or surgery for head and neck squamous cell cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors compared the survival outcomes of radiotherapy+/-salvage surgery to surgery+/-postoperative radiotherapy for patients with squamous cell cancer of the hypopharynx. There was no evidence beyond observational studies and no consensus on the which treatment is most effective for this patient group. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective population-based study of 595 patients from Ontario Canada diagnosed between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1999. Three different methodological approaches were used for the survival analysis including a restricted cohort study, a matched case-control study, and a natural experiment study across defined geographic regions. RESULTS: The authors found no survival advantage for either radiotherapy+/-salvage surgery or surgery+/-postoperative radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study set the baseline for clinical decisions that was not previously established there is no difference in survival for patients with hypopharynx comparing primary surgery to primary radiotherapy. This information is essential for the interpretation of current treatment results, the planning of future clinical studies and the treatment of patients who are not having chemoradiotherapy.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".