MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999537987 · doi:10.1002/lio2.351

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of transoral laser microsurgery in hypopharyngeal carcinoma

2020· review· en· W2999537987 on OpenAlexaff
Ciarán Lane, Rasheda Rabbani, Janice Linton, S. Mark Taylor, Norbert Viallet

Bibliographic record

VenueLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationManitoba HealthDalhousie UniversityUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransoral laser microsurgeryMedicineMicrosurgeryMeta-analysisLarynxSurgeryCarcinomaHypopharyngeal cancerInternal medicineLaryngeal NeoplasmRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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, I2 = 29%), pooled disease‐specific survival was 72% (CI, 0.68‐0.77, I2 = 46%), and pooled local control rate was 78% (CI, 0.72‐0.85, I2 = 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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.018
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaryngoscope Investigative OtolaryngologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207