Craniofacial surgery for nonmelanoma skin malignancy: Report of an international collaborative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the efficacy of craniofacial surgery (CFS) in treating locally advanced nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC). METHODS: One hundred twenty patients who underwent CFS for NMSC were identified from 17 participating institutions. Patient, tumor, and treatment information was analyzed for prognostic impact on survival. RESULTS: Surgical margins were negative in 74%, close in 3%, and involved in 23% of patients. Complications occurred in 35% of patients, half of which were local wound problems. Operative mortality was 4%. Median follow-up interval after CFS was 27 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 64%, 75%, and 60%, respectively. Squamous cell histology, brain invasion, and positive resection margins independently predicted worse OS, DSS, and RFS. CONCLUSION: CFS is an effective treatment for patients with NMSC invading the skull base. Histology, extent of disease, and resection margins are the most significant predictors of outcome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".