Clinical utility of PET/CT in the evaluation of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with an unknown primary: A prospective clinical trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with an unknown primary is an uncommon but important problem. PET/CT, as an adjunct to diagnosis, is potentially useful but has never been studied in a prospective, single-blinded clinical trial. METHODS: In all, 20 subjects with cervical metastases from an unknown head and neck primary were enrolled in a prospective clinical trial. A standard protocol was used in both clinic and operating room (OR). Study surgeons were blinded to the PET/CT result upon completion of the standard work-up. RESULTS: PET/CT increased the detection of a primary site from 25% to 55% (5 vs 11 subjects). This difference was statistically and clinically significant (p = .03, McNemar's test). There was 1 false negative PET/CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: An unknown primary should be diagnosed only after a complete head and neck examination, flexible endoscopy, and CT or MRI. PET/CT performed prior to panendoscopy will increase the diagnostic yield in the unknown head and neck primary population, leading to more targeted, and less morbid, 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it