Lingual tonsil lymphatic tissue regrowth in patients undergoing transoral robotic surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate a possible regrowth of lingual tonsil lymphatic tissue in patients submitted to lingual tonsil resection with transoral robotic surgery (TORS). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Study. METHODS: Medical records of patients surgically treated by means of TORS to remove excessive lymphatic tissue of the lingual tonsil were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative endoscopic data after long-term follow-up were analyzed to investigate possible lymphatic tissue regrowth. Preoperative and postoperative lingual tonsil lymphatic tissue were classified according to the standardized Friedman's grading scale ranging from 0 to 4. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (41 male and 27 female; mean age = 51.3 years) were considered suitable for the study analysis. Clinical regrowth was observed in six (8.8%) patients: four (5.9%) and two (2.9%) patients with grade 2 and 3 lymphatic hypertrophy, respectively. No correlation between the grade of regrowth, the time interval from surgery, and the volume of lymphatic tissue removed was found. CONCLUSIONS: The lymphatic tissue regrowth after TORS resection appears to be very low. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:2652-2657, 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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it