Established prognostic variables in NO oral carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the utility of established prognostic variables in patients with oral carcinoma and a clinically negative neck. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The distribution of occult metastases was assessed in 105 oral cancer patients with no clinical or radiological evidence of nodal disease. Predictors for nodal metastases, recurrence, and survival were examined. RESULTS: Occult neck metastases occurred in 34 percent of patients. Tumor thickness was the only independent predictor of occult metastases, with thin (</=5 mm) and thick (>5 mm) tumors having a 10 percent and 46 percent incidence of regional disease, respectively (P = 0.001). Nodal metastases and perineural invasion were significant predictors of survival. CONCLUSION: Patients with thick tumors are at high risk of nodal metastases and are likely to benefit from elective neck dissection. Comprehensive neck dissection should be considered in advanced primary disease. SIGNIFICANCE: Tumor thickness is the most important predictor of occult regional metastases in oral cavity cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".