Clinical Course of Thyroid Carcinoma After Neck Dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare the rate and site of recurrences in patients with well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma who underwent a central compartment dissection, a posterolateral neck dissection, or a combination of both procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: The charts of 522 consecutive patients with well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma were reviewed, and 74 patients who had undergone a neck dissection were identified. The rates of recurrence in three sites were noted: the central compartment nodes (levels VI, superior mediastinum), posterolateral compartment neck nodes (levels II-V), and distant sites. These rates were compared in patients who underwent a central compartment dissection (level VI, superior mediastinum) and in patients who underwent a posterolateral neck dissection (levels II-V). RESULTS: Six patients underwent only a central compartment dissection, 47 patients had only a posterolateral neck dissection, and 21 patients had both a central compartment and a posterolateral neck dissection. In these three groups there were zero, two, and two central compartment node recurrences; two, nine, and seven posterolateral neck recurrences; and zero, two, and three distant recurrences, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rate of recurrence in any of the three sites examined between any of the three treatment groups (Fisher's Exact test, all P values >.20). CONCLUSION: In patients with well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma, dissection of only the central or posterolateral compartments of the neck with clinical or radiographic evidence of disease is advocated.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".