<sup>18</sup>F‐FDG PET/CT for locoregional surveillance following definitive treatment of head and neck cancer: A meta‐analysis of reported studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To evaluate the performance of 18 F‐fluorodeoxy‐ d ‐glucose positron emission tomography‐computed tomography ( 18 F‐FDG PET/CT) in identifying local failure and regional failure following curative radiotherapy or surgery for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Methods A comprehensive literature search identified studies published between January 2010 and August 2016. Diagnostic performance of 18 F‐FDG PET/CT was evaluated for local failure/regional failure stratified by treatment‐to‐scan time interval of ≤3 versus >3 months. Results Twenty‐four studies (2627 patients) were included. Compared to ≤3 months, 18 F‐FDG PET/CT performed >3 months showed significantly improved sensitivity (87% vs 60%, P = 0.020) and specificity (93% vs 84%, P < 0.001) for local failure. There was no significant difference in sensitivity (79% vs 56%, P = 0.100) or specificity (95% vs 97%, P = 0.35) for regional failure >3 versus ≤3 months. Conclusions This meta‐analysis confirms high specificity but modest sensitivity of posttreatment 18 F‐FDG PET/CT for local failure and regional failure. Sensitivity and specificity are significantly improved when 18 F‐FDG PET/CT is performed >3 months for local failure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".