MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080606221 · doi:10.2310/7070.2007.0033

Patterns of Lymph Node Metastases to the Submuscular Recess

2007· article· en· W2080606221 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rachael L. Smith, S Mark Taylor, Jonathan Trites, Anita Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeck dissectionSurgeryDissection (medical)MalignancyOtorhinolaryngologyHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaCarcinomaLymph nodeRadiation therapyHead and neck cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207