MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395182711

IIb or not IIb: oncologic role of submuscular recess inclusion in selective neck dissections.

2008· article· en· W2395182711 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin J. A. Hoyt, Rachel Vickers‐Smith, Anita Smith, Jonathan Trites, S. Mark Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Selective neck dissections (SNDs) can yield outcomes that are oncologically similar to radical dissections but with less morbidity. The rate of metastasis to level IIb is not clear, and its dissection involves cranial nerve XI traction and devascularization, causing much morbidity. Our study examined the prevalence and predictors of cancer within the submuscular recess (SMR). METHODS: All SNDs performed by the authors were prospectively included from July 1, 2002, to March 31, 2006. Level IIb was sent as a distinct specimen. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two dissections were performed. Only 12 (7.9%) were node positive in IIb. The SMR contained diseased nodes in 12.2% of N+ necks and 3.0% of N0 necks (p = .04); 23.1% (3 of 13) of laryngeal (1 of 8) and hypopharyngeal (2 of 5) tumours were node positive in IIb versus 6.4% in the oral cavity (p = .07) and 5.3% in oropharyngeal lesions. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest prospective studies examining the role of level IIb dissection. It suggests that level IIb dissection might be unnecessary, especially in an N0 neck.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207