MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096360724 · doi:10.1002/lio2.448

Circulating tumor cell analysis in locally advanced and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

2020· article· en· W3096360724 on OpenAlexaff
Ethan Harris, Julian Huang, Erin Carroll, Alarice Lowe, Nicole G. Chau, Guilherme Rabinowits, Robert I. Haddad, Glenn J. Hanna, Tyler Haddad, Matthew R. Sanborn, Alec Kacew, Jochen H. Lorch

Bibliographic record

VenueLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer FoundationSpinal Cord Injury BCBC Cancer Agency
FundersRegeneron PharmaceuticalsSanofiEMD SeronoPfizer
KeywordsMedicineCirculating tumor cellOncologyInternal medicineHead and neck cancerUnivariate analysisHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaProspective cohort studyMetastasisCancerDiseasePopulationMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumors cells (CTCs) are considered an early step towards metastasis and have been linked to poor prognosis in several types of cancer. CTCs in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) have an unclear role. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with locally advanced or metastatic SCCHN had CTC counts assessed before starting systemic treatment using the CellSearch System. Select cases also had sequential CTC evaluation. Presence of CTCs was correlated with patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients enrolled, and 36 had evaluable clinical data and baseline CTC counts. Twenty-five patients had locally advanced disease (LAD) and 11 had metastatic disease. ≥1 CTCs were detected in six patients with LAD (24%) and four with metastatic disease (36%). On univariate analysis, smoking was associated with CTCs. CONCLUSION: CTCs are not associated with prognosis in patients with LAD and metastatic disease; however, they are present in this patient population, and ≥1 CTCs is associated with a history of smoking. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b; individual prospective cohort study.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaryngoscope Investigative OtolaryngologySame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207