MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052962381 · doi:10.1186/s40463-015-0056-8

Survival outcomes of First Nations patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (Poliquin 2014)

2015· article· en· W2052962381 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bree Erickson, Vincent L. Biron, Han Zhang, Hadi Seikaly, David W. J. Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal cellOral cavityMedicineOncologyInternal medicineCarcinomaDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) is the most common head and neck cancer, affecting approximately 2000 Canadians yearly. Analysis of Canadian Cancer Registry data has shown that the incidence of oral cavity cancer is decreasing and survival outcomes are improving. There are significant health disparities in First Nations (FN) people in Canada. The incidence of cancer in FN groups is significantly lower when compared to the general population, but the cancer-related morbidity and mortality is significantly higher. There is no Canadian literature currently for OCSCC, or any other head and neck cancer, that compares survival outcomes of FN to the overall population. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in epidemiology and survival outcomes between FN and non-FN patients with OCSCC. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of a population-based, prospectively-collected database from Alberta Cancer Registry (ACR). Patients with OCSCC, diagnosed and treated in Alberta between 1998 and 2009 were included. ACR data collected included patient gender, age at diagnosis, tobacco and alcohol use, FN status, TNM staging, performance status, date of death, cause of death, and follow-up. FN status was identified through the Alberta Health and Wellness registry and through postal code correlation for those who live on reserves. RESULTS: A total of 583 patients with OCSCC were included in this study. Of these, 19 were identified as being FN, leaving 564 non-FN patients. When comparing the FN and non-FN groups, there is no significant difference in baseline demographics. Estimated yearly incidences for OCSCC in the Alberta population (all ages) and FN patients are 1.74/100,000 and 1.32/100,000 respectively (p = 0.23). Significant differences are seen in overall survival (OS) (5-year OS 58.1% for non-FN and 33.7% for FN) and for disease-specific survival (DSS) (5-year DSS 67.8% for non-FN and 44.5% for FN). Multivariate analysis confirmed FN patients have a significant increase risk of death in OS and DSS, with hazard ratios of 4.20 (p = 0.01) and 4.57 (p = 0.02), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall survival and disease specific survival are significantly lower in FN patients compared to non-FN patients with OCSCC.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck SurgerySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207