MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339078688 · doi:10.1002/hed.24348

Neurologic late effects associated with radiologic evidence of vertebral osteoradionecrosis after salvage laryngectomy: A syndrome associated with survivors of laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer

2016· article· en· W2339078688 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Rosko, Matthew E. Spector, Garrett R. Griffin, Jeffrey M. Vainshtein, Jae Lee, Carol R. Bradford, Mark E. Prince, Jeffrey S. Moyer, Francis P. Worden, Avraham Eisbruch, Douglas B. Chepeha

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsMedicineLaryngectomySurgeryPharynxHypopharyngeal cancerNeck painChemoradiotherapyRadiation therapyLarynx

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delayed nonspecific posterior neck pain after pharyngeal instrumentation can be associated with a syndrome of rapidly progressive neurologic embarrassment. We present this cohort to help define the syndrome and aid in early detection. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case series of 6 patients presenting from 2003 to 2012 with a history of laryngeal or hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) who underwent radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by salvage laryngectomy. RESULTS: Posterior neck and upper back pain developed a mean of 27.5 days after instrumentation of the pharynx (reconstruction after laryngectomy or pharyngeal dilation). Myelopathy developed an average of 21.5 days after the onset of posterior neck pain. Five patients required urgent decompression. Three patients developed quadriplegia. The disease-specific mortality was 50%. CONCLUSION: There is a syndrome of late neurological effects after RT, salvage surgery, and pharyngeal instrumentation that is associated with high morbidity and mortality. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38:1187-1193, 2016.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207