Risk stratification after recurrence of human papillomavirus (<scp>HPV)</scp>‐related and <scp>non‐HPV</scp>‐related oropharyngeal cancer: Secondary analysis of <scp>NRG</scp> Oncology <scp>RTOG</scp> 0129 and 0522
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No risk-stratification strategies exist for patients with recurrent oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). METHODS: Retrospective analysis using data from prospective NRG Oncology clinical trials RTOG 0129 and 0522. Eligibility criteria included known p16 status and smoking history, and locoregional/distant recurrence. Overall survival (OS) was measured from date of recurrence. Recursive partitioning analysis was performed to produce mutually exclusive risk groups. RESULTS: Hundred and fifty-four patients were included with median follow-up after recurrence of 3.9 years (range 0.04-9.0). The most important factors influencing survival were p16 status and type of recurrence, followed by surgical salvage and smoking history (≤20 vs. >20 pack-years). Three significantly different risk groups were identified. Patients in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups had 2-year OS after recurrence of 81.1% (95%CI 68.5-93.7), 50.2% (95%CI 36.0-64.5), and 20.8% (95%CI 10.5-31.1), respectively. CONCLUSION: Patient and tumor characteristics may be used to stratify patients into risk groups at the time of OPC recurrence.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".