Delays in diagnosis of head and neck cancers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delayed diagnosis of head and neck cancer is often caused by patient related factors. However, the primary health care provider may also be responsible. OBJECTIVES: To define patient, professional and total delay, and to identify factors that may increase delay. METHODS: The study group consisted of 102 patients with oral or pharyngeal cancer referred to Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario. The study took place from September 2005 to September 2006. RESULTS: Median patient, professional and total delays were 4.5 weeks, 11.8 weeks and 22.5 weeks, respectively. Significantly longer delays were found among women(p < 0.01), non-smokers (p < 0.01), patients who were not referred following initial consultation(p < 0.001) and patients who did not visit their dentist (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should adopt a "universal index of suspicion" in screening for head and neck cancer, with attention to the risk indicators for delay. Patients must also be encouraged to visit their dentist regularly to increase the rate of early detection.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".