Achieving negative resection margins in oral cavity cancer with masticator space involvement—Is it feasible? International collaborative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Masticator space involvement in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) is considered an unresectable disease. Nevertheless, achieving negative resection margins is feasible in limited masticatory space involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-institutional study on OCSCC patients with masticator space invasion who underwent surgical resection. Margin status was assessed according to anatomic tumor involvement of the inframandibular and supra-mandibular notch. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. Then, 67 patients (50.8%) were diagnosed with a supra-notch tumor and 65 (49.2%) with an infra-notch disease. Negative margins were more common in the infra-notch group (43.3 vs. 23.1%, p = 0.014), and positive margins were more common in the supra-notch group (41.5 vs. 23.9%, p = 0.041). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that supra-notch tumors had an increased likelihood for involved resection margins (odds ratio = 2.46, p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: OCSCC patients with masticator space involvement are prone for positive surgical margins in tumors extending above the supra-mandibular notch.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".