Overview of surgery for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer in Ontario, 2003‐2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of this study was to describe variations in incidence rates, resections rates, and types of surgical resection for patients diagnosed with laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers in Ontario. METHODS: All laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer cases in Ontario (2003-2010) were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry (n = 3034). Variations in incidence rates, resection rates, and type of surgical resection were compared by sex, age group, neighborhood income, community population, health region, and physician specialty. RESULTS: Incidence rates per 100 000 vary significantly by sex, age, neighborhood income, and community size. Women, the elderly (75+ years), those in the higher income quintiles, and those living in larger communities were significantly less likely to receive a laryngectomy procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer incidence rates vary by sex, age, neighborhood income, community size, and health region. Resection rates vary by age, sex, and health region. These disparities warrant further evaluation to improve the quality of delivered care in Ontario.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".