Secular Trends in the Survival of Patients with Laryngeal Carcinoma, 1995–2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest a decline over time in the survival of patients newly diagnosed with laryngeal cancer in spite of developments in treatment practices. Our study set out to determine whether the survival of patients with laryngeal cancer in Ontario has changed over time. METHODS: This population-based cohort study of patients diagnosed with laryngeal cancer in the province of Ontario between 1995 and 2007 used data extracted from linked provincial administrative and registry databases. Its main outcomes were overall survival, laryngectomy-free survival, and survival ratio relative to an age- and sex-matched general population. RESULTS: The 4298 patients newly diagnosed with laryngeal cancer during the period of interest were predominantly men (n = 3615, 84.1%) with glottic cancer (n = 2787, 64.8%); mean age in the group was 66 years (interquartile range: 59-74 years). Patient demographics did not significantly change over time. Overall, 5-year survival was 57.4%; laryngectomy-free survival was 45.4%. Comparing patients from three eras (1995-1998, 1999-2003, 2004-2007) and adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidity status, we observed no differences in overall survival or laryngectomy-free survival over time. The 5-year relative survival ratio for patients with laryngeal cancer compared with an age- and sex-matched group from the general population was 81.1% for glottic cancer and 44.5% for supraglottic cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a new diagnosis of laryngeal cancer, overall and laryngectomy-free survival have remained unchanged since the mid-1990s. New methods to improve survival and the rate of laryngeal preservation in this patient population are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".