MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142439497 · doi:10.1002/hed.21439

Prognostic significance of p16 in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck treated with concurrent cisplatin and radiotherapy

2010· article· en· W2142439497 on OpenAlexaff
Harold Lau, Sony Brar, Alexander C. Klimowicz, Stephanie Petrillo, Desirée Hao, Nigel T. Brockton, Christina S. Kong, Susan P. Lees‐Miller, Anthony M. Magliocco

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCISHMedicineImmunohistochemistryOncologyHead and neck cancerCisplatinInternal medicineRadiation therapyHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaSurrogate endpointHuman papillomavirusRegimenCancer researchChemotherapyIn situ hybridizationMessenger RNABiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-related squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN) has emerged as a distinct clinical entity. The expression of p16 protein can be used as a surrogate for HPV status. METHODS: p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was assessed in archival paraffin-embedded material for 55 patients with locally advanced SCCHN treated with a uniform regimen of cisplatin and radiation. HPV status was assessed by colorimetric in situ hybridization (CISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). RESULTS: Compared with p16- and HPV-negative patients, the p16- and HPV-positive patients had improved overall survival, disease-free survival, and locoregional recurrence rates. CONCLUSIONS: p16 IHC may serve as a useful surrogate and prognostic marker for patients with HPV-related SCCHN treated with cisplatin and radiation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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