Elucidating survival and functional outcomes in patients with primary head and neck malignancies treated in academic versus community settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differences in treatment outcomes between community or academic centers are incompletely understood. METHODS: Retrospective review of head and neck cancer patients between 2010 and 2020 in a rural health region. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to evaluate survival outcomes, along with bivariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Linear regression was used for functional outcomes of tracheotomy and gastrostomy tube dependence. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-eight patients treated at an academic center were compared with 94 patients treated in community centers. In multivariable analysis, the risk of death (HR = 0.60, p = 0.019), and risk of recurrence were lower (HR = 0.29, p < 0.001) for patients treated in academic centers. Patients treated in community centers had longer gastrostomy tube dependence (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that treatment at an academic center was associated with a lower risk of recurrence and shorter gastrostomy tube dependence compared to treatment in the community.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".