Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography for the Preoperative Staging of Oral Cavity Cancers: Only One Piece of the Puzzle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, the potential uses for positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of cancer include the characterization of disease at presentation, assessment of disease response to treatment, and the detection of recurrent disease. Published reports of the use of PET in cancer patients listed in the PubMed databasehavemultipliedbyafactorof10overthelastdecade,with close to 1,000 reports in 2005. It is reasonable to conclude that, for the majority of patients at presentation who undergo staging with computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the use of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET does not add information that would change initial management. Nonetheless, FDG-PET will detect disease that would have been otherwise overlooked for an important minority of patients.Theconsequenceshouldpreventundertreatmentinthecase ofspecificallytargetedtherapiessuchassurgeryorradiation.Alternatively,whenFDG-PETdeterminesthatdiseasehasspreadbeyondthe possibility of curative treatments, the morbidity of overtreatment will
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".