Prognosis of Patients less than 40 Years of Age with Squamous Cell Cancer of the Oral Tongue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Controversy exists about the prognosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue between young and older patients. Our objective was to evaluate age as a prognostic factor in oral tongue cancer. Materials and methods A retrospective study was conducted by reviewing charts of 61 patients. They were divided into two age groups, below 40 years and above 40 years. Data regarding epidemiology pathology report, tumor differentiation, staging, treatment and outcome were obtained. The length of survival and disease recurrence was calculated and compared in this two age group. Statistical analysis was performed using student, t-test. Results The result showed no significant difference in prognosis, tumor differentiation or staging related to age in oral tongue cancer. Conclusion Although age is not a significant prognostic factor in oral tongue cancer, the disease etiology is likely different, we recommend prompt and aggressive treatment of young patients. How to cite this article Al-Qahtani K, Brousseau V, Islam T. prognosis of patients less than 40 Years of Age with Squamous Cell Cancer of the Oral Tongue. Int J Head Neck Surg 2015;6(2): 53-56.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".