MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365137168 · doi:10.1002/hed.27368

Incidence and predictive factors of retropharyngeal lymph node metastases in patients with oropharyngeal cancer undergoing multimodality treatment planning imaging

2023· article· en· W4365137168 on OpenAlexaff
Danny Lavigne, Maïlys De-Meric-de-Bellefon, Felix‐Phuc Nguyen‐Tan, David Landry, Laurent Létourneau‐Guillon, Manon Bélair, Brian O’Sullivan, Édith Filion, Houda Bahig

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsMedicineSoft palateRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiation treatment planningRadiation therapyLymph nodeSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We investigated the incidence and predictive factors of retropharyngeal lymph node (RPLN) metastases in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) undergoing multimodality treatment planning imaging before radiotherapy. METHODS: Consecutive patients with OPC treated with curative-intent radiotherapy from 2017 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Treatment planning comprised contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) unless contraindicated. RESULTS: Of 300 patients, 66 (22%) had radiological evidence of RPLN involvement on planning images, compared to 17 (6%) on diagnostic CT alone. On multivariate analysis, RPLN involvement was statistically (p < 0.05) associated with tonsil, soft palate, and posterior pharyngeal wall primaries, and with disease extension to the soft palate or vallecula. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodality treatment planning imaging reveals a high rate of RPLN metastases from OPC compared to diagnostic CT alone. Patients with tonsil, soft palate, or posterior pharyngeal wall primaries or disease extending to the soft palate or vallecula appear at higher risk.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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