MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321172395 · doi:10.1002/hed.27319

Equity in adjuvant radiotherapy utilization in locally advanced head and neck cancer: A <scp>SEER</scp>‐data based study

2023· article· en· W4321172395 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Beckett, Marc Gaudet, Jean‐Marc Bourque, Kristopher Dennis, May Abdel–Wahab

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdjuvantLogistic regressionSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End ResultsHead and neck cancerEpidemiologyInternal medicineRadiation therapyResidenceAdjuvant radiotherapyOncologyCancerSurgeryDemographyCancer registry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Not all patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) who are eligible for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) following upfront surgery appear to receive it. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Selected patients from 2009 to 2018 had locally advanced HNC, underwent upfront surgery, and were eligible for adjuvant RT. Multivariable logistic regression and chi-squared test were used to analyze available patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Of 12 549 patients, 84.5% underwent adjuvant RT, 15.5% did not. Characteristics associated with lowest adjuvant RT utilization included cancers of the larynx (p < 0.0001) and gingivae (p < 0.0001), age 80 and above (p < 0.0001), unpartnered status (p < 0.0001), and residence within a nonmetropolitan area (p < 0.0024). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor subsite, age, partnered status, and rural/urban residence correlate with omission of adjuvant RT in locally advanced HNC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207