Correlation between clinical and MRI assessment of depth of invasion in oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neck metastasis is the most important prognostic factor in oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). Apart from the T- stage, depth of invasion has been used as a highly predictable factor for microscopic neck metastasis, despite the controversy on the exact depth cut off point. Depth of invasion can be determined clinically and radio logically. However, there is no standard tool to determine depth of invasion preoperatively. Although MRI is used widely to stage the head and neck disease, its utility in depth evaluation has not formally been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare preoperative clinical and radiological depth evaluation in oral tongue SCC using the standard pathological depth. To compare clinical and radiological accuracy between superficial (<5 mm) vs. deep invaded tumor (≥5 mm) METHODS: This prospective study used consecutive biopsy-proven oral tongue invasive SCC that presented to the University health network (UHN), Toronto. Clinical examination, radiological scan and appropriate staging were determined preoperatively. Standard pathology reports postoperatively were reviewed to determine the depth of invasion from the tumor specimen. RESULTS: 72 tumour samples were available for analysis and 53 patients were included. For all tumors, both clinical depth (r = 0.779; p < 0.001) and radiographic depth (r =0.907; p <0.001) correlated well with pathological depth, with radiographic depth correlating slightly better. Clinical depth also correlated well with radiographic depth (r = 0.731; p < 0.001). By contrast, for superficial tumors (less than 5 mm on pathological measurement) neither clinical (r = 0.333, p = 0.34) nor radiographic examination (r = - 0.211; p = 0.56) correlated with pathological depth of invasion. CONCLUSION: This is the first study evaluating the clinical assessment of tumor thickness in comparison to radiographic interpretation in oral cavity cancer. There are strong correlations between pathological, radiological, and clinical measurements in deep tumors (≥5 mm). In superficial tumors (<5 mm), clinical and radiological examination had low correlation with pathological thickness.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".