MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507217434 · doi:10.5430/jst.v7n1p1

Retrospective analysis of the clinical efficacy of concurrent weekly cisplatinum – radiotherapy for patients with laryngeal carcinoma

2016· article· en· W2507217434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed A Aboziada, Ashraf Elyamany

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcomitantRadiation therapyLarynxCarcinomaSurgeryOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and aim: Laryngeal preservation with concurrent chemo-radiation is an effective, alternative management forcancer larynx. Three weekly cis-platinum concurrent with radiotherapy (RT) considered the standard. However, weekly cisplatinumhas proven very effective for advanced head and neck carcinoma. We review our data to prove the efficacy and safety ofweekly cis-platinum plus RT for laryngeal preservation. Patients and methods: Untreated 64 patients with advanced laryngeal carcinoma were retrospectively analyzed. Patients offeredfor 6 weeks of cis-platinum 40 mg/m 2 concurrent with conformal RT; 70 Gy delivered to gross primary and lymph nodes. Results: Forty-six (71.8%) patients had complete remission (CR). Early stages had better CR than late stages. Median follow upwas 40 months. Three years DFS and OS were 69% and 77% respectively. Larynx preservation survival at 3 years was 73%.Protocol of treatment was tolerable, grade 3 or 4 acute and late toxic effects were reported in 25% of the included cases. Conclusion: Weekly cis-platinum could be effective and safe. We need to evaluate this protocol prospectively and compare itwith three-weekly high dose cis-platinum with concomitant radiotherapy.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207