Diagnostic delay and disease stage in head and neck cancer: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to examine the evidence for an association between patient and/or provider-related diagnostic delay and late stage at diagnosis. STUDY DESIGN: We identified all English language published studies worldwide and present a summary of the direction and magnitudes of the associations observed. We consider the role of study population characteristics and symptom variation across the head and neck cancer sites on the delay-stage association. RESULTS: The 27 eligible studies reviewed varied considerably in the cancer types grouped by analysis, types of delay, and measurement of delay. The relationship between diagnostic delay and stage at diagnosis varied in direction and magnitude, with no consistent positive association in any of the head and neck cancer sites. CONCLUSIONS: Possible explanations for the lack of an observed relationship between patient delay and stage include: inaccurate measurement of delay, lack of sensitivity of disease stage to delay-related disease progression, and variation in tumor aggressiveness, which could lead to variation in symptom progression rates. We call for better evidence about the relationship between diagnostic delay and disease progression and/or disease outcomes. If demonstrated and validated, such associations would provide a much stronger argument than description of delay alone for education programs around symptom recognition and for more active screening of high-risk individuals.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 it