Clinical outcomes of temporal bone squamous cell carcinoma: A single‐institution experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the survival outcomes and potential prognostic factors of patients with temporal bone squamous cell carcinoma (TBSCC) treated at our institution. METHODS: We retrospectively included patients who were diagnosed with TBSCC between 2008 and 2019. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to describe overall survival (OS), and the association between baseline characteristics and prognoses was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients with TBSCC were included in this study. The results showed that patients with advanced modified Pittsburgh (MPB)- T classifications had a poorer prognosis (T3 vs. T1-2: HR: 2.81, 95% CI: 0.34-23.43; T4 vs. T1-2: HR: 7.25, 95% CI: 0.95-55.41; p = 0.041). Meanwhile, middle ear squamous cell carcinoma (MESCC) showed a significantly worse prognosis than external auditory canal squamous cell carcinoma (EACSCC, HR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.04-6.76, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: MESCC and advanced MPB-T classifications might be considered predictors of unfavorable outcomes in patients with TBSCC, indicating that special attention should be paid to the original tumor subsite and tumor extension in the management of patients with TBSCC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".