MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064095945 · doi:10.1002/hed.22908

Parathyroid cancer: Outcome analysis of 16 patients treated at the princess margaret hospital

2012· article· en· W2064095945 on OpenAlexaff
Boban M. Erović, David P. Goldstein, Dae Hyun Kim, Özgür Mete, James D. Brierley, Richard Tsang, Jeremy L. Freeman, L. Sylvia, Lorne Rotstein, Jonathan C. Irish

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParathyroid carcinomaAdjuvant radiotherapyCohortRetrospective cohort studyRadiation therapyCancerCarcinomaSurgeryInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to discuss the appropriate management options for parathyroid carcinomas, which is still a subject of controversy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 16 patients with parathyroid carcinoma was undertaken to determine the clinical outcome. RESULTS: All patients were initially treated with surgery, and 11 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. The 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival rates were 100% and 80%, respectively; the 5- and 10-year disease-free survival rates were 69% and 43%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year locoregional control rates were 69% and 52%, respectively; the 5- and 10-year distant control rates were 89% and 74%, respectively. In this cohort, none of the clinicopathologic parameters could be defined as a predictor. CONCLUSION: In patients with parathyroid carcinoma, definition of prognostic factors and the role of adjuvant radiation treatment has still to be elucidated. Nevertheless, angioinvasion and positive resection margins are critical factors regarding disease-free survival in patients with parathyroid carcinomas.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicParathyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207