MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150179435 · doi:10.1002/hed.20920

Esthesioneuroblastoma: The Princess Margaret Hospital experience

2008· article· en· W2150179435 on OpenAlexaff
Gideon Bachar, David P. Goldstein, Manish D. Shah, Asheesh Tandon, Jolie Ringash, Gregory R. Pond, Patrick Gullane, Bayardo Perez‐Ordoñez, Ralph Gilbert, Dale H. Brown, Fred Gentili, Brian O’Sullivan, Jonathan C. Irish

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsthesioneuroblastomaHistoryPsychoanalysisPsychologyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Esthesioneuroblastoma is rare. The aim of the study was to review our experience and to evaluate the staging system and treatment that best correlates with the patient outcome. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients were identified between 1972 and 2006. RESULTS: At presentation 10% had cervical metastases. None had distant metastasis. Five were treated with surgery, 2 with chemotherapy, 1 with radiotherapy, and 30 with surgery and radiation. Local disease control was 82.6% at 5 years. Recurrence was seen in 33% with local and regional disease recurrence at 15% and 18%, respectively. The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were 87.9% and 69.2%, respectively. Dulguerov classification correlated most closely to survival and recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Dulguerov classification best correlates with the patient's outcome. A combined approach is the preferred treatment. It makes no difference whether radiotherapy is given pre or postsurgical resection. Recurrence can occur even 15 years after treatment. Therefore, long-term follow-up is essential.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations111
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207