Patterns of Lymph Node Metastases to the Submuscular Recess
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of lymph node metastases in the submuscular recess (level 2B) in selective neck dissections. The goal was to evaluate the oncologic need for dissection in this area owing to the increased morbidity from devascularization of the spinal accessory nerve. METHODS: A prospective analysis of 74 patients who underwent 80 neck dissections from July 2002 to March 6, 2004, was undertaken. Seventy-six of the 80 neck dissections were performed in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, whereas the remainder were done for papillary carcinoma of the thyroid. All submuscular recess specimens were sent separately from the remainder of the neck dissection. The location of the primary tumour, staging, presurgical radiation status, and the number of nodes in both specimens were recorded. RESULTS: Forty-six percent (37 of 80) of the neck dissections were positive for malignancy. Of the 80 neck dissections, 8.75% (7) had positive nodes in the submuscular recess. All patients with disease in the submuscular recess were preoperatively staged as N2B or greater. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that dissection of the submuscular recess in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck may be warranted only in patients with N2B disease or greater.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".