The role of panendoscopy in the management of mucosal head and neck malignancy?A prospective evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is common practice for a panendoscopy to be included in the evaluation of patients with mucosal head and neck malignancies. Whether this intervention is efficient or cost-effective has not been established in our patient population. METHODS: Two hundred twenty-four patients with squamous cell carcinoma involving the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, or neck were evaluated prospectively with panendoscopy and chest x-ray with or without barium swallow. One hundred fifty-four patients had newly diagnosed tumors and 70 were previously diagnosed and currently undergoing symptom-directed investigations. RESULTS: The incidence of synchronous primary tumors was 2.6% (4 of 154); pulmonary, 1.3%; head and neck mucosa, 1.3%; and esophageal, 0%. There was no associated morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no associated morbidity, our head and neck oncology group is of the opinion that routine panendoscopy is not warranted. Specific indications for this investigation are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".