Presence and duration of feeding tube in a 5‐year cohort of patients with head and neck cancer treated with curative i<scp>ntensity‐modulated</scp> radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our study assessed post-radiation therapy (RT) G-tube presence, duration, and clinical predictors in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: We identified those 1-5-years post-RT with stage III/IV nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, laryngeal, or unknown primaries. Logistic regression identified predictors of post-RT G-tube presence, Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated G-tube days, and log-rank test compared by tumor site. RESULTS: The 977 patients had mean age 60.6 ± 11.6 years, 804 (82.3%) male, 764 (78.2%) stage IV, and 618 (63.3%) oropharyngeal primaries. All patients received intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), 571 (58.4%) received chemotherapy, and 698 (71.4%) prophylactic G-tube. G-tube prevalence 1- and 5-years post-IMRT was 7.1% and 4.8%, respectively. Median post-IMRT G-tube days were overall 63 (95%CI: 56-70), nasopharynx 119 (95%CI: 109-131), oropharynx 57 (95%CI: 51-68), hypopharynx 126 (95%CI: 77-256), larynx 53 (95%CI: 21-63), unknown 30 (95%CI: 17-55), of which hypopharynx was highest p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: At an institution offering prophylactic G-tube for patients with advanced HNC, no differences were found in yearly G-tube use 1-5 years post-IMRT. Across all patients, median post-IMRT days with G-tube was 63 day but those with hypopharyngeal tumors registered the most days.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".