Prognostic Factors in Well‐Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the prognostic significance of standard clinicopathologic factors in patients with well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma (WDTC). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review of the thyroid cancer database at Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto, Canada 1963-2000) was carried out. METHODS: All patients consecutively treated for WDTC with a follow-up period of at least 5 years were eligible for inclusion. Relevant patient, tumor, treatment, and outcome data were collected. The main outcome measures were recurrence rate, actuarial overall, and disease-specific survival at 20 years. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-three patients (F 275, M 58) with a median age of 39.7 (range 9-82.9) years were eligible for inclusion in this study (median follow-up 10.4 years, range 5-34.4 years, minimum 5 years). The recurrence rate was 15.6% (52 /333). The overall and disease-specific survival at 10 years was 97.5% and 98.5%, respectively. Likewise, the overall and disease-specific survival at 20 years was 88.4% and 93.3%, respectively. Clinicopathologic factors significant on multivariate regression for the development of disease recurrence included family history of WDTC, advanced stage, and total thyroidectomy (all P < .05). Similarly, advanced stage on presentation was associated with a worse disease-specific survival on multivariate regression (all P < .05). There was a trend for age 60 or greater to predict disease-specific survival (P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: WDTC is associated with a significant recurrence rate but good disease-specific survival. The most important prognostic factors are family history of WDTC, extent of surgical treatment (i.e., total thyroidectomy), and advanced initial stage of disease, with a trend for age 60 years and older.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".