Evaluation of treatment outcomes in patients with supraglottic laryngeal cancer in Ontario, Canada: A population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma has an entirely different etiology, clinical presentation, and prognosis compared to glottis cancer but the only evidence for the use of concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy (CRT) is the 5.4% 5-year improvement in overall survival (OS) for the combined laryngeal site. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective population-based study using administrative data to compare OS, disease-specific survival (DSS), laryngectomy-free survival, and laryngoesophageal dysfunction-free survival over time and by treatment for all patients with supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma diagnosed between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2014, in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: There was no improvement over time in OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.006; P = .90), DSS (HR 1.031; P = .65), or laryngoesophageal dysfunction-free survival (P = .39). The patients selected for CRT had similar OS (HR 1.04; P = .66), laryngectomy-free survival (HR 0.95; P = .23), and laryngoesophageal dysfunction-free survival (P = .79) compared with patients undergoing radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: The addition of CRT by head and neck oncologists in Ontario, Canada, did not improve outcomes for the "real world" patients with supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".