Predictive classifier for intensive treatment of head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the effectiveness of intensive treatment for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) depends on the proportion of patients' overall event risk attributable to cancer. METHODS: This study analyzed 22,339 patients with LAHNC treated in 81 randomized trials testing altered fractionation (AFX; Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Squamous Cell Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH] data set) or chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] data set). Generalized competing event regression was applied to the control arms in MARCH, and patients were stratified by tertile according to the ω score, which quantified the relative hazard for cancer versus competing events. The classifier was externally validated on the MACH-NC data set. The study tested for interactions between the ω score and treatment effects on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Factors associated with a higher ω score were a younger age, a better performance status, an oral cavity site, higher T and N categories, and a p16-negative/unknown status. The effect of AFX on OS was greater in patients with high ω scores (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99) and medium ω scores (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) versus low ω scores (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05; P for interaction = .086). The effect of chemotherapy on OS was significantly greater in patients with high ω scores (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88) and medium ω scores (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93) versus low ω scores (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.08; P for interaction = .011). CONCLUSIONS: LAHNC patients with a higher risk of cancer progression relative to competing mortality, as reflected by a higher ω score, selectively benefit from more intensive treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".