Clinical outcomes of head and neck cancer patients who refuse curative therapy in pursuit of alternative medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the alarming trend of curable head and neck cancer (HNC) patients forgoing conventional treatment to pursue alternative medicine (AM). METHODS: A prospectively maintained database identified HNC patients with ≥12 weeks from diagnosis to treatment initiation between 2012 and 2017. Reasons for delay were categorized and clinical stages and outcomes of AM patients were assessed through chart review by December 2019. RESULTS: Among 1462 patients with primary HNC, 68 patients (4.7%) were confirmed to delay initiation of potentially curative treatment, and 19 of these patients (28%) delayed treatment to pursue AM. Eleven of 19 AM patients transitioned from curative intent to palliation while exploring AM. Continued treatment rejection was common and outcomes corresponded to patients' degree of treatment adherence. CONCLUSIONS: AM caused treatment delay and poor outcomes in potentially curable HNC. Improved knowledge among physicians regarding AM and complementary approaches is urgently needed to improve patient counseling. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: outcomes research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".