Historical compliance rates for providing postoperative radiotherapy in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2014, Alberta Health Services released guidelines for treating oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed to assess the historical selection of patients with OSCC for postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in a prospectively collected cohort of patients being treated with primary surgery. The primary outcome was compliance with the 2014 Alberta Health Services (AHS) guideline recommendations for PORT. The secondary outcome was the selection of PORT according to published pathological indications of high, intermediate, and low risk of recurrence. Reasons for discordance were analyzed. RESULT: Noncompliance with the new AHS guidelines and published indications for PORT was observed in 17% and 30% of cases, respectively. The reasons for discordance with published indications included: clinician decision (n = 41) and unmodifiable factors (n = 17). CONCLUSION: The impact of noncompliance on patient outcomes is being studied. The effect of the publication of the guidelines on selection for PORT going forward will be monitored. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: First-1529, 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".