Stereotactic radiotherapy as planned boost after definitive radiotherapy for head and neck cancers: Systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancers (HNCs) remains a challenge. Some groups have attempted to use stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) to deliver "boost" treatment following conventional radiotherapy to improve local control (LC) and overall survival (OS), while aiming for acceptable toxicities. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for SBRT as curative-intent planned boost in HNC after conventional radiotherapy. Individual studies were reviewed from inception until January 2021, extracting patient, treatment, and outcome data. Nine studies met inclusion criteria, representing 454 unique patients treated with curative intent across multiple head and neck sites with conventional radiotherapy. At 3 years, median LC was 92% (90%-98%), and median OS was 80% (75%-91%). Seven treatment-related grade 5 toxicities (1.5%) were reported. Despite acceptable LC and OS rates, there were severe treatment-related late toxicities. As such, SBRT boost should only be used in investigational settings until more data is available.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".