Sparing the region of the salivary gland containing stem cells preserves saliva production after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year, 500,000 patients are treated with radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, resulting in relatively high survival rates. However, in 40% of patients, quality of life is severely compromised because of radiation-induced impairment of salivary gland function and consequent xerostomia (dry mouth). New radiation treatment technologies enable sparing of parts of the salivary glands. We have determined the parts of the major salivary gland, the parotid gland, that need to be spared to ensure that the gland continues to produce saliva after irradiation treatment. In mice, rats, and humans, we showed that stem and progenitor cells reside in the region of the parotid gland containing the major ducts. We demonstrated in rats that inclusion of the ducts in the radiation field led to loss of regenerative capacity, resulting in long-term gland dysfunction with reduced saliva production. Then we showed in a cohort of patients with head and neck cancer that the radiation dose to the region of the salivary gland containing the stem/progenitor cells predicted the function of the salivary glands one year after radiotherapy. Finally, we showed that this region of the salivary gland could be spared during radiotherapy, thus reducing the risk of post-radiotherapy xerostomia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".