Survival outcomes for cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp versus face
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether angiosarcoma outcomes differ for the scalp and face. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective outcomes analysis of 50 patients with cutaneous angiosarcoma treated by curative intent identified from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Registry (from 1958 to 2014). RESULTS: Median survival was 26 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.6-34.6) and median follow-up 29 months. For the scalp and face, respectively, the 5-year locoregional control rate was 9% and 53% (p = .04); the recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was 5% and 27% (p = .017); and the overall survival (OS) rate was 9% and 26% (p = .017). Scalp lesions were larger, more likely to be multifocal, and presented more rapidly once noticed. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, scalp location was independently prognostic for mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; 95% CI, 1.03-4.28; p = .04). CONCLUSION: Scalp angiosarcoma has worse survival than angiosarcoma of the face. Scalp angiosarcoma tends to be larger at presentation, which may be because it is not noticed until more advanced. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 39: 1205-1211, 2017.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it