MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Soft‐Tissue Sarcomas of the Head and Neck: A Retrospective Analysis of the Alberta Experience 1974 to 1999

2006· article· en· W2037661255 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerhard Huber, T. Wayne Matthews, Joseph C. Dort

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
KeywordsMedicineDermatofibrosarcoma protuberansProportional hazards modelSarcomaSoft tissueHead and neckSoft tissue sarcomaSurvival analysisRetrospective cohort studyStage (stratigraphy)Medical recordOncologyCancerCancer registryOverall survivalHead and neck cancerInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) of the head and neck constitute a heterogeneous group of rare malignant tumors occurring in an uncommon site. The most common subtypes of STS in the head and neck are malignant fibrous histiocytoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, and fibrosarcoma. Evidence based subtype-specific treatment decisions are often not possible. METHODS: The medical records of 110 patients diagnosed with head and neck sarcomas were reviewed. All were treated at one of the two major Cancer Centers in Alberta, Canada, between 1974 and 1999. Potential prognostic factors including age, sex, tumor size, histology, grade, tumor location (superficial or deep), and use of adjuvant treatment were evaluated. Cox proportional hazards models were developed to study the impact of these covariates on survival. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 61.5 months. Five year overall, disease specific, and relapse free survival were 65.8%, 83.4%, and 74.2%, respectively. With use of a Cox proportional-hazards model, tumor stage and grade were important prognostic factors affecting survival. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor size and grade were important prognostic factors affecting survival. Tumor location in relation to the superficial fascia (depth) was the best predictor of outcome. The overall and disease-free survival in this patient group was excellent. However, this likely caused by the high proportion of patients with low-grade tumors in our study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207