Association of post‐treatment longitudinal symptom severity clusters with subsequent survival in oropharyngeal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer often experience multiple symptoms concurrently. We identified patient clusters based on longitudinal symptom severity trajectories in oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) and evaluated the potential clinical utility of this approach. METHODS: A retrospective OPC patient cluster analysis using 6 months of symptom severity data from radiotherapy initiation. The clinico-demographic characteristics and overall survival of patients were compared between clusters. RESULTS: We identified four clusters of patients differing in longitudinal symptom severity. Cluster A (n = 168) included patients with the mildest longitudinal symptoms, cluster B (n = 59) and cluster C (n = 63) were intermediate, and cluster D (n = 30) included patients with the worst symptoms. The clusters differed in their HPV status, ECOG performance status, smoking history, drinking history, treatment modality, and 5-year survival. These clusters separated symptom severity trajectories more distinctly than individual clinico-demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Early symptom severity trajectory clustering revealed distinct patient clusters that were prognostic of overall survival.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".