Predictors of gastrostomy tube dependence in surgically managed oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To elucidate predictive factors in the perioperative period resulting in gastrostomy tube (G-tube) dependence for patients undergoing primary surgical treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) in the modern era. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty patients with known OPSCC treated with primary surgery were screened and selected from a retrospective database spanning from 2002 to 2012 at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (Columbus, Ohio), with univariable and multivariable logistic regression modeling used to determine independent predictive factors resulting in G-tube dependence (defined as tube persistence/presence 1 year after surgery). RESULTS: Surgical approach, baseline characteristics, tumor (T)-nodal-metastasis stage, human papillomavirus status, extent of tissue resected, surgical complications, reconstructive technique, preoperative G-tube presence, and adjuvant treatment were recorded. Patients undergoing open surgery for OPSCC without adjuvant treatment had 42.9% G-tube dependence (44.6% with adjuvant chemoradiation [CRT]) compared to 0% for those undergoing transoral nonrobotic surgery (8.1% with adjuvant CRT) and 0% for those undergoing transoral robotic surgery (10.3% with adjuvant CRT). In multivariable analysis, greater than 25% of the oral tongue resected (odds ratio [OR] 12.29; P = 0.03), an open surgical approach (OR 5.72; P < 0.01) and T3/T4 tumor stage (OR 2.84; P = 0.02) were independent and significant predictors of G-tube dependence. CONCLUSION: Surgical approach, advanced tumor stage, and oral tongue resection may influence the development of nutritional dependence for surgically treated patients with OPSCC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:415-421, 2019.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".