Patient preferences in early glottic cancer treatment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with early-stage glottic cancer are primarily treated with one of three options: endoscopic laser excision, external-beam radiation, or open conservation surgery. We sought to determine patient preferences for treatment when presented with a choice between CO2 laser resection and radiation (open conservation surgery was not offered because the endoscopic approach is preferred at our institution). This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine in Halifax, Canada. Our patient population was made up of 54 men and 10 women, aged 30 to 84 years (mean: 65.0 ± 11.2). Their disease were staged as follows: carcinoma in situ, n = 11; T1a = 21; T1b = 6; and T2 = 26. Patients were quoted identical cure rates for the two treatment modalities. The controversial issue of voice outcomes was discussed, but no leading information was given to the study cohort. All 64 patients chose CO2 laser resection as opposed to radiation therapy for definitive treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".