MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081088752 · doi:10.1002/hed.26402

Long‐term survival of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after bone marrow transplant

2020· article· en· W3081088752 on OpenAlexaff
Catriona M. Douglas, Ashock R. Jethwa, Wael Hasan, Amy Liu, Ralph Gilbert, David P. Goldstein, John De Almedia, Jeff H. Lipton, Jonathan C. Irish

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaHead and neck cancerInternal medicineOncologyCancerStage (stratigraphy)Retrospective cohort studyBone marrowPopulationDiseaseBone marrow transplantSurgeryBone marrow transplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The risk of developing head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in patients with graft versus host disease (GVHD) after bone marrow transplant (BMT) is well established but large series reporting outcomes are sparse. METHODS: Retrospective, single institution, study of patients with GVHD and HNSCC after BMT, between January 1, 1968, and June 30, 2016. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were studied, of which 21 (84%) were male and 4 (16%) were female. Mean age for BMT was 41 (18-65) years. All patients developed GVHD, most common site was oral cavity (19 patients, 76%). Mean age for diagnosis of HNSCC was 52 (28-76) years. Mean time between BMT and diagnosis of HNSCC was 12 (2-13) years. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 61.4%, 5-year PFS was 56.7%. The 2-year overall survival (OS) was 82.8%, 5-year OS was 68.7%. CONCLUSION: HNSCC can develop many years after BMT in patients without the classic risk factors for head and neck cancer. The majority were seen with oral cancer and with early-stage disease likely due to active surveillance and early detection in this patient population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207