MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139570319 · doi:10.1002/hed.20786

Outcomes following reirradiation of patients with head and neck cancer

2008· article· en· W2139570319 on OpenAlexaff
David P. Goldstein, Lucy Hynds Karnell, Min Yao, Gregory Chamberlin, Thanh Xuan Nguyen, Gerry F. Funk

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck cancerRadiation therapyHead and neckQuality of life (healthcare)Overall survivalPalliative careAdverse effectCancerRetrospective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study reports the outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer who received reirradiation with palliative or curative intent. METHODS: A retrospective review of 41 patients treated with curative (n = 28) or palliative (n = 13) reirradiation was conducted. Survival was calculated from the start of the reirradiation. Radiation-related toxicities were classified according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. Disease-related problems included adverse events during or after reirradiation that were not directly related to reirradiation. RESULTS: The observed 1-year survival for all patients was 39.0% (23.0% palliative, 46.3% curative). Median survival for all patients was 10.2 months. Seventy-five percent of curative and 53.8% of palliative patients had grade 3 or 4 radiation-related toxicities and/or major disease-related problems. CONCLUSION: A second course of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer should be offered with a clear understanding that survival is poor and many of these patients will suffer severe radiation-related or disease-related insults to their quality of life during and after treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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