AHNS series: Do you know your guidelines? Guideline recommendations for recurrent and persistent head and neck cancer after primary treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locoregional recurrent/persistent head and neck cancer following primary treatment is a significant challenge as it is usually difficult to treat and has worse outcomes compared to the primary setting. Surgical resection of a local or regional recurrence offers the best chance of cure when feasible. Local recurrence outcomes vary by subsite with laryngeal recurrences having the best prognoses and hypopharynx having the worst. Instances of persistent neck masses following primary nonsurgical treatment can be evaluated with positron emission tomography (PET) with CT (PET-CT) when there is no definitive diagnosis of a recurrence/persistence. Reirradiation with or without chemotherapy can be considered for primary treatment when surgery is not an option, for adjuvant treatment following salvage surgery, or for palliation. Immunotherapy represents a newer class of chemotherapeutic agents. Current guidelines recommend enrollment in clinical trials especially when surgery is not an option as outcomes remain universally poor in the recurrent/persistent setting.
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".