MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170583146 · doi:10.1002/hed.26772

Bleeding complications in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

2021· review· en· W3170583146 on OpenAlexaff
Cristiana Bergamini, Robert L. Ferris, Jing Xie, Gabriella Mariani, Muzammil Ali, William C. Holmes, Kevin J. Harrington, Amanda Psyrri, Stefano Cavalieri, Lisa Licitra

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaOncologyInternal medicineEpidermal growth factor receptorHead and neck cancerChemotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemorrhage in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) may be attributed to chemotherapy and local tumor irradiation. Evidence of the relationship between hemorrhage in R/M HNSCC and targeted therapies, including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, or immune checkpoint inhibitors, is limited. We aimed to identify epidemiological and clinical data related to the occurrence of hemorrhage in R/M HNSCC and to explore its relationship with various therapies. We describe information obtained from literature searches as well as data extracted from a commercial database and a database from the author's institution (Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan). Evidence suggests that most bleeding events in R/M HNSCC are minor. Clinical trial safety data do not identify a causal association between hemorrhage and anti-EGFR agents or immune checkpoint inhibitors. In contrast, anti-VEGF agents are associated with increased, and often severe/fatal, hemorrhagic complications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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