Practice patterns for positive sentinel lymph node in head and neck melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An international survey was conducted to investigate the preferences for completion lymph node dissection (CLND) in head and neck melanomas. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent through the American Society of Head & Neck Surgery (AHNS) and Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (CSO). RESULTS: Hundred and forty-nine surgeons completed the survey. Response rate was 6.3% and 9.7% from AHNS and CSO members, respectively. When presented the scenario of a 47-year-old male with a clinical T3bN0 cheek melanoma, with 1/1 positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) with nodal deposit <2 mm, 72 of respondents (48.3%) would perform a CLND. Reasons for CLND included multiples positive SLN (64.1%), size of nodal deposits (54.2%), and perceived lack of compliance to follow-up (54.2%). Surgeons with access to immunotherapy treatment were less likely to recommend CLND (p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Following SLN biopsy, nearly half of the surveyed head and neck surgeons would recommend CLND, which contrasts with the current melanoma practice patterns in other anatomic locations. However, compared with an earlier study in the literature it does seem that there has been a shift away from completion neck dissection. Further investigation into understanding practice variations is warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 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".