MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309150448 · doi:10.1111/coa.14009

Post‐operative survival in head and neck cancer patients with elevated troponins

2022· article· en· W4309150448 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Hua, Marc Levin, Han Zhang, Michael Xie, Tobial McHugh, Michael K. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Otolaryngology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck cancerInternal medicineAdjuvantAdjuvant therapyOverall survivalDiseaseTroponinProportional hazards modelRetrospective cohort studyOncologyCancerSurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The strenuous demands of head and neck cancer surgery (HNS) place patients at increased risk of myocardial injury. Troponin positivity (TP) post-operatively is a predictor of increased complications and mortality. The present study is the first to investigate the effects of TP on potential delays in adjuvant treatment and disease-specific survival. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All patients undergoing HNS from 2014 to 2016 had troponins measured at a single academic centre. Relevant patient data was extracted on retrospective chart review. The main outcome measures were the impact of TP on timing of adjuvant treatment and disease-specific survival. RESULTS: Of 166 patients, 26 (15.6%) developed TP post-operatively. There was no significant difference between cohorts for baseline characteristics except for age. Overall and disease-specific survival for TP patients were respectively 45.9% and 57.4% at 3 years. There was no significant difference between cohorts for overall and disease-specific survival, and time to adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: No significant association was found between TP and overall and disease-specific survival, and time to adjuvant therapy.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical OtolaryngologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207