MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221056167 · doi:10.1002/hed.26964

Oligometastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma: Correlating tumor burden and time to treatment with outcomes

2021· article· en· W4221056167 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Tyan, Ji Eun Bae, Jochen H. Lorch, Danielle N. Margalit, Roy B. Tishler, Mai Anh Huynh, Vickie Y. Jo, Robert I. Haddad, Nicole G. Chau, Glenn J. Hanna, Jonathan D. Schoenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer FoundationSpinal Cord Injury BCBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdenoid cystic carcinomaAblative caseRetrospective cohort studyHead and neckInternal medicineOverall survivalPopulationSurgeryDistant metastasisCarcinomaRadiologyOncologyMetastasisRadiation therapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the management and outcomes of oligometastases (OM) in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). METHODS: Retrospective study of 42 patients with metastatic ACC of the head and neck. Imaging studies were analyzed to identify patients with OM (1-5 lesions) at any point during follow-up. RESULTS: There was radiographic evidence of OM in 33/42 (79%) patients. Eighteen patients had OM when treated for metastases, with median overall survival (OS) of 36.0 versus 9.2 years for patients with polymetastases (6+ lesions, HR 0.38, 95%CI 0.14-0.89). Earlier locally ablative treatment, but not systemic treatment, of patients with OM predicted improved survival 3 years after metastasis (HR 0.15, 95%CI 0.02-0.63) and postponed systemic treatment by 80 more months (HR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable population of ACC patients with detectable oligometastases, and early locally ablative treatment of oligometastases may be associated with improved outcomes.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicSalivary Gland Tumors Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207