MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972193436 · doi:10.1186/s40463-019-0367-2

Systematic review and meta-analysis of T1 glottic cancer outcomes comparing CO<sub>2</sub> transoral laser microsurgery and radiotherapy

2019· review· en· W2972193436 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Vaculik, C.A. MacKay, S. Mark Taylor, Johnathan R. B. Trites, Robert D. Hart, Matthew H. Rigby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransoral laser microsurgeryMedicineMeta-analysisRadiation therapyMicrosurgeryHead and neck cancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) and radiotherapy (RT) for treatment of T1 glottic carcinoma. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the following databases: Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Search results were screened, and publications comparing oncologic outcomes of T1N0M0 glottic carcinoma treated with TLM or RT were included. Data was extracted independently by two authors, and publication quality was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Meta-analysis was performed for overall survival, disease specific survival, laryngeal preservation, and local control. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the meta-analysis, the majority being retrospective cohort studies with two prospective cohort studies. Included studies were rated as either Level II or III evidence. Meta-analysis favoured treatment with TLM for T1 glottic carcinoma patients for the following outcomes: overall survival (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-2.14; P = 0.02), disease specific survival (OR, 2.70; CI, 1.32-5.54; P = 0.007), and laryngeal preservation (OR, 6.31; CI, 3.77-10.56; P < 0.00001). There was no difference in local control between TLM and RT in T1 glottic cancer (OR, 1.19; CI, 0.79-1.81; P = 0.40). DISCUSSION: Our study provides a current and thorough comparison of TLM and RT outcomes in T1 glottic carcinoma. Limitations of our study include lack of randomized control trials, and non-randomized allocation of patients to treatment groups. Our meta-analysis suggests that TLM is the superior modality in terms of overall survival, disease specific survival, and laryngeal preservation. Future prospective randomized controlled studies are required for confirming these findings and developing appropriate clinical practice guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2A; as per the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.038
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations81
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck SurgerySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207