Primary temporal bone squamous cell carcinoma: Comparing the prognostic value of the American Joint Committee on Cancer <scp>TNM</scp> classification (8th edition) with the revised Pittsburgh staging system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retrospectively considering a temporal bone squamous cell carcinomas (TBSCCs) series, our aim was to compare the predictive power of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system (8th edition) with the revised Pittsburgh staging system (rPSS) in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Forty-three TBSCCs consecutively treated surgically were reviewed. The prognostic performance of AJCC and rPSS was compared. RESULTS: The areas under the curves for the prediction of DFS, DSS, and OS did not differ significantly between both staging systems (p = 0.518, p = 0.940, and p = 0.910, respectively). Harrel's C-indexes for respectively the AJCC and rPSS were 0.76 and 0.70 for DFS, 0.73 and 0.76 for DSS, 0.66 and 0.63 for OS. CONCLUSION: Comparable prognostic accuracy was observed between AJCC and rPSS. Levels of prognostic performance were only acceptable for both systems, according to Hosmer-Lemeshow scale. Further efforts are needed to define new TBSCC staging modalities with higher prognostic reliability.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it