MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953080824 · doi:10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.05.010

Head and neck cancer management and cancer stem cells implication

2019· review· en· W2953080824 on OpenAlexafffund
Osama A. Elkashty, Ramy Ashry, Simon D. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Saudi Dental Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of Higher Education
KeywordsMedicineCancer stem cellCancerHead and neck cancerRadiation therapyHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaCarcinogenesisOncologyHead and neckMalignancyStem cellEtiologyBasal cellAlcohol consumptionCancer researchPathologyInternal medicineSurgeryBiologyAlcohol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs) arise in the mucosal linings of the upper aerodigestive tract and are heterogeneous in nature. Risk factors for HNSCCs are smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and the human papilloma virus. Conventional treatments are surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or a combined modality; however, no international standard mode of therapy exists. In contrast to the conventional model of clonal evolution in tumor development, there is a newly proposed theory based on the activity of cancer stem cells (CSCs) as the model for carcinogenesis. This "CSC hypothesis" may explain the high mortality rate, low response to treatments, and tendency to develop multiple tumors for HNSCC patients. We review current knowledge on HNSCC etiology and treatment, with a focus on CSCs, including their origins, identifications, and effects on therapeutic options.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Saudi Dental JournalSame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207