MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153586083 · doi:10.1002/hed.20878

Mucosal melanomas of the head and neck: The Princess Margaret Hospital experience

2008· article· en· W2153586083 on OpenAlexaff
Gideon Bachar, Kwok Seng Loh, Brian O’Sullivan, David P. Goldstein, Stephen J. Wood, Dale Brown, Jonathan C. Irish

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMucosal melanomaPathologicalHead and neckRetrospective cohort studyOral cavityDiseaseSurgeryNasal cavityInternal medicineDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify the prognostic variables in mucosal melanoma of the head and neck. METHODS: A retrospective review of 61 cases over a 41-year period was undertaken. Local, regional, and distant failures were major outcome measures. Demographic, clinical, and pathological parameters were identified and correlated with outcomes. RESULTS: The median age at diagnosis was 68 years. Sinonasal cavity involvement occurred in 80.3% of patients and 16.4% occurred in the oral cavity. Local, regional, and distant recurrences were 60.7%, 19.7%, and 49.2%, respectively. Two-year and 5-year disease-free survivals were 25.8% and 8%, respectively. Disease-specific survival at 5 years was 28.7%. Age<50 years significantly correlated with a longer median survival time. CONCLUSION: The most common occurrence site was the sinonasal cavity. Local and distant recurrences are common irrespective of treatment modalities. Younger patients have a relatively better prognosis. Disseminated disease is common and the overall prognosis is poor.

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)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations146
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207