Does Tumour Biological Behaviour Influence Prognosis More than Diagnostic Delay in Oral Cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide, oral cancer has one of the lowest survival rates (lethal disease for over 50% of cases diagnosed annually) and remains unaffected despite recent therapeutic advances. Unfortunately, almost half of the oral cancers are diagnosed at stages III or IV, probably due to delays in reaching a definitive diagnosis. Many preventive approaches (secondary prevention) have been designed assuming the logical hypothesis that the longer the diagnostic delay, the more advanced the cancer and the worse the prognosis. However, a number of studies failed to prove this association or even found an inverse relationship. We hypothesize that tumour's biological heterogeneity in terms of aggressiveness may explain shorter delays linked to advanced stages and bad prognosis. The assumption of this hypothesis would entail favouring oral cancer and precancer screening strategies at the preclinical stage of the disease, and therefore strategies of opportunistic screening for oral cancer and precancer on asymptomatic at risk population should be reinforced.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".