Number needed to treat analysis for planned neck dissection after chemoradiotherapy for advanced neck disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to analyze how many planned neck dissections (PNDs) must be performed to prevent one fatal neck recurrence after chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer with regional metastasis. METHODS: a systematic literature review of studies using chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for head and neck cancer was performed. Data were extracted where possible to determine estimates for the following variables: (1) percentage of N2-3 necks still harbouring cancer after chemoradiotherapy as proven by pathology from neck dissection (C); (2) percentage of regional recurrence after PND (P); (3) percentage of regional recurrence after salvage neck dissection for patients without initial PND in whom neck disease recurred after chemoradiotherapy (S); and (4) mortality rate of PND (M). The number needed to treat was calculated using the following equation: NNT = 1/[C*(S+M) - (P+M)]. RESULTS: the number needed to treat is 7.5. CONCLUSION: to prevent one fatal neck recurrence after chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer with N2-3 disease, one would need to perform 7.5 PNDs. The results of this study will aid surgeons and patients in making more informed decisions regarding neck dissections.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".