Systematic review and meta‐analysis of transoral laser microsurgery in hypopharyngeal carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Transoral laser microsurgery has been suggested as an alternative treatment modality for hypopharyngeal carcinoma. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients with hypopharyngeal carcinoma when treated with primary transoral laser microsurgery. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed using PRISMA methodology on OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE. Meta‐analysis was completed for oncological outcomes. Results Six studies reported quality of life outcomes five reported oncologic outcomes. A median of 95% (range 0.83‐0.98) patients achieving gastrostomy independence, a median of 3% (range 0%‐6%) were tracheostomy dependent, and a median of 97% (Range 0.89‐1.0) were able to preserve their larynx. Pooled five‐year overall survival was 54% (CI, 0.50‐0.58, I 2 = 29%), pooled disease‐specific survival was 72% (CI, 0.68‐0.77, I 2 = 46%), and pooled local control rate was 78% (CI, 0.72‐0.85, I 2 = 69%). Conclusion Systematic review supports improvements in functional outcomes and oncologic outcomes with transoral laser microsurgery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".