MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366581727 · doi:10.3390/jcm12082979

Re-Irradiation for Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer: Freedom from Cancer Recurrence Rate

2023· article· en· W4366581727 on OpenAlexaff
Issa Mohamad, Taher Abu Hejleh, Sania Abdelqader, Lina Wahbeh, Ayat Taqash, Abdelatif Almousa, Ebrahim Mayta, Akram Al‐Ibraheem, Fawzi Abuhijla, Ramiz Abu‐Hijlih, Tariq Hussein, Wisam Al‐Gargaz, Hamza Ghatasheh, Ali Hosni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersKing Hussein Cancer Center
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointHead and neck cancerRetrospective cohort studyCancerSurgeryInternal medicineCohortOncologyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salvage re-irradiation (rRT) for patients with locoregionally recurrent head and neck cancer (rHNC) remains challenging. A retrospective analysis was performed on 49 patients who received rRT between 2011 and 2018. The co-primary endpoint of the study was 2-year freedom from cancer recurrence rate (FCRR) and overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were 2-year disease-free survival (DFS), local failure (LF), regional failure (RF), distant metastases (DM), and RTOG grade 3 ≥ late toxicities. Adjuvant and definitive rRT were delivered to 22 and 27 patients, respectively. A total of 91% of patients were managed with conventional re-RT and 71% of patients received concurrent chemotherapy. The median follow-up after rRT was 30 months. The 2-year FCRR, OS, DFS, LF, RF, and DM were 64%, 51%, 28%, 32%, 9%, and 39% respectively. MVA showed that poor performance status (PS: 1-2 vs. 0) and age > 52 years were predictive of worse OS. In comparison, poor PS (1-2 vs. 0) and total dose of rRT < 60 Gy were predictive of worse DFS. Late RTOG toxicity of grade 3 ≥ was reported in nine (18.3%) patients. FCRR at 2 years after salvage rRT for rHNC was higher than other traditional endpoints and could be an important endpoint to be included in future rRT studies. rRT for rHNC at our cohort was relatively successful, with a manageable level of late severe toxicity. Replacing this approach in other developing countries is a viable option.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207