MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110311036 · doi:10.1002/hed.23136

Transoral resection of pharyngeal cancer: Summary of a National Cancer Institute Head and Neck Cancer Steering Committee Clinical Trials Planning Meeting, November 6–7, 2011, Arlington, Virginia

2012· article· en· W2110311036 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Adelstein, John A. Ridge, David M. Brizel, F. Christopher Holsinger, Bruce H. Haughey, Brian O’Sullivan, Eric M. Genden, Jonathan J. Beitler, Gregory S. Weinstein, Harry Quon, Douglas B. Chepeha, Robert L. Ferris, Randal S. Weber, Benjamin Movsas, John Waldron, Val J. Lowe, Scott D. Ramsey, Judith Manola, Bevan Yueh, Thomas E. Carey, Justin E. Bekelman, André Konski, Eric J. Moore, Arlene A. Forastiere, David E. Schuller, Jean Daly, Claudio Dansky Ullmann

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck cancerCancerHead and neckHuman papillomavirusClinical trialGeneral surgerySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances now permit resection of many pharyngeal tumors through the open mouth, an approach that can greatly reduce the morbidity of surgical exposure. These transoral techniques are being rapidly adopted by the surgical community and hold considerable promise. On November 6-7, 2011, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a Clinical Trials Planning Meeting to address how to further investigate the use of transoral surgery, both in the good prognosis human papillomavirus (HPV)-initiated oropharyngeal cancers, and in those with HPV-unrelated disease. The proceedings of this meeting are summarized.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations103
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207