MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214712677 · doi:10.1002/hed.27023

Transoral robotic surgery for the identification of unknown primary head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: Its effect on the wait and the weight

2022· article· en· W4214712677 on OpenAlexaff
Faisal Alzahrani, Axel Sahovaler, Neil Mundi, Almoaidbellah Rammal, Naif Fnais, S. Danielle MacNeil, Adrian Mendez, John Yoo, Kevin Fung, Francisco Laxague, Andrew Warner, David A. Palma, Anthony C. Nichols

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransoral robotic surgeryBasal cellHead and neckPharynxSurgeryHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaPrimary treatmentHead and neck surgeryHead and neck cancerCarcinomaInternal medicineOtorhinolaryngologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neck carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is a frequent scenario. Transoral robotic mucosectomies (TORM) of pharynx have increased rate of primary identification, but come with cost of treatment delay. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent CUP protocol from 2014 to 2020. Patients with cervical nodes carcinoma and failure to localize a primary source were classified as CUP. We determined primary identification rate and postoperative complications. RESULTS: We included 65 patients underwent TORM. Surgical approach consisted of lingual and/or palatine tonsillectomies. The primary detection rate was 49.2%. Average weight reduction was 2.5 ± 4.3 kg. The average number of days from consultation to definitive treatment was 52.2 ± 18.3. CONCLUSION: A systematic approach to patients with CUP showed a promising primary identification rate compared to panendoscopy alone. TORM carries a small risk of complications. The benefits of primary identification must be weighed with the morbidity and delay to definitive treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207