Does HPV type affect outcome in oropharyngeal cancer?
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
BACKGROUND: An epidemic of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) has been reported worldwide largely due to oral infection with HPV type-16, which is responsible for approximately 90% of HPV-positive cases. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A retrospective search identified ninety-five patients diagnosed with OPSCC. Pre-treatment biopsy specimens were tested for p16 expression using immunohistochemistry and for HPV-16, HPV-18 and other high-risk subtypes, including 31,33,35,39,45,51,52,56,58,59,67,68, by real-time qPCR. RESULTS: Fifty-nine tumours (62%) were positive for p16 expression and fifty (53%) were positive for known high-risk HPV types. Of the latter, 45 tumors (90%) were identified as HPV-16 positive, and five tumors (10%) were positive for other high-risk HPV types (HPV-18 (2), HPV-67 (2), HPV-33 (1)). HPV status by qPCR and p16 expression were extremely tightly correlated (p < 0.001, Fishers exact test). Patients with HPV-positive tumors had improved 3-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) compared to patients with HPV-negative tumors (90% vs 65%, p = 0.001; and 85% vs 49%, p = 0.005; respectively). HPV-16 related OPSCC presented with cervical metastases more frequently than other high-risk HPV types (p = 0.005) and poorer disease-free survival was observed, although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: HPV-16 infection is responsible for a significant proportion of OPSCC in Southwestern Ontario. Other high-risk subtypes are responsible for a smaller subset of OPSCC that present less frequently with cervical metastases and may have a different prognosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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