MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171496715 · doi:10.2196/24592

Pulmonary Screening Practices of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgeons Across Saudi Arabia in the Posttreatment Surveillance of Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Cross-sectional Survey Study

2021· article· en· W3171496715 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Majed Alnefaie, Abdullah Alamri, Asalh Saeedi, Awwadh Althobaiti, Shahad B Alosaimi, Yousuf Alqurashi, Hani Marzouki, Mazin Merdad

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOtorhinolaryngologyHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaCross-sectional studyLung cancer screeningField cancerizationIncidence (geometry)LungRadiologyHead and neck cancerInternal medicineSurgeryBasal cellPathologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With respect to patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), posttreatment surveillance for distant disease has mostly focused on the lungs, as HNSCC distant metastasis occurs in this organ in 90% of HNSCC cases. Additionally, the incidence rate of primary tumors in the lungs is high due to the field cancerization of the entire upper aerodigestive tract. OBJECTIVE: Our cross-sectional survey study aims to evaluate the current beliefs and pulmonary screening practices of otolaryngology-head and neck surgeons across Saudi Arabia with respect to the posttreatment surveillance of HNSCC. METHODS: This nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted among head and neck surgeon members of the Saudi Society of Otolaryngology from June 1 to June 30, 2020. A predesigned questionnaire was used for data collection, and a descriptive analysis was carried out. RESULTS: This study included 22 participants and had a 78% (22/28) response rate. This study found that the majority of participants (9/22, 41%) used lung radiography for routine lung screening during posttreatment follow-ups, whereas 32% (7/22) used low-dose computed tomography (CT; 7/22, 32%). With regard to the number of years for which participants perform lung screening during follow-ups, the majority of participants (17/22, 77%) reported 5 years, and only 9% (2/22) have performed lifelong lung screening. With regard to the frequency of lung screening, 77% (17/22) of participants conduct screening annually, 18% (4/22) conduct screening half-yearly, and 5% (1/22) conduct screening biennially. With regard to beliefs about the effectiveness of screening procedures in reducing lung cancer mortality rates during follow-ups, 36% (8/22) of participants believed them to be very effective or somewhat effective, 18% (4/22) did not know, and only 9% (2/22) believed that they were not effective. CONCLUSIONS: The participants mainly used lung radiography (9/22, 41%), low-dose CT (7/22, 32%), or positron emission tomography/CT (6/22, 27%) as a routine lung screening method during the posttreatment follow-up of patients with head and neck cancer for 5 years (17/22, 77%) or 10 years (3/22, 14%), and only a small percentage of participants have performed lifelong lung screening (2/22, 9%). Lung screening was mostly conducted annually or half-yearly. Such screening was believed to be very effective or somewhat effective.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.374 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207