Survival Outcomes in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the External Auditory Canal: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) of the external auditory canal (EAC) are rare tumors representing a surgical challenge. Current knowledge is based largely on case series; thus, the level of evidence is weak. This study sought to systematically review the available SCC of the EAC literature and to identify risk factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). A systematic review and meta-analysis of papers searched up to December 2022 through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. Quality assessment of the eligible studies was done according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled univariate and multivariable analyses and meta-analysis using a random-effects or fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel model were performed. Fifteen articles (282 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled multivariable analysis revealed cT3 and cT4 as independent prognostic factors for OS (p = 0.005, and p < 0.001, respectively) and DSS (p = 0.002, and p < 0.001, respectively). Local recurrence rate was 32.3%. The meta-analysis estimated significantly higher odds ratios for advanced T categories, than cT1-T2 tumors for OS and DSS (OR = 3.55; 95% CI, 1.93–6.52, and OR = 3.73; 95% CI, 2.00–6.97, respectively). In conclusion, locally advanced tumors were associated with poor prognosis. Poor outcomes mostly occurred due to local recurrence.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it