MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390738962 · doi:10.1016/j.clon.2024.01.002

Pharyngeal Constrictor Dose–Volume Histogram Metrics and Patient-Reported Dysphagia in Head and Neck Radiotherapy

2024· article· en· W4390738962 on OpenAlexafffund
O. Paetkau, S. Weppler, Jaime Kwok, Harvey Quon, C. G. Rocha, Wendy Smith, Ekaterina Tchistiakova, Charles Kirkby

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Health Services
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesKillam Trusts
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaCohortHead and neck cancerRadiation therapySwallowingRadiologyRetrospective cohort studyChemoradiotherapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Head and neck radiotherapy long-term survival continues to improve and the management of long-term side-effects is moving to the forefront of patient care. Dysphagia is associated with dose to the pharyngeal constrictors and can be measured using patient-reported outcomes to evaluate its effect on quality of life. The aim of the present study was to relate pharyngeal constrictor dose-volume parameters with patient-reported outcomes to identify prognostic dose constraints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 64-patient training cohort and a 24-patient testing cohort of oropharynx and nasopharynx cancer patients treated with curative-intent chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively examined. These patients completed the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory outcome survey at 12 months post-radiotherapy to evaluate late dysphagia: a composite score lower than 60 indicated dysphagia. The pharyngeal constrictor muscles were subdivided into four substructures: superior, middle, inferior and cricopharyngeal. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics for each of the structure combinations were extracted. A decision tree classifier was run for each DVH metric to identify dose constraints optimising the accuracy and sensitivity of the cohort. A 60% accuracy threshold and feature selection method were used to ensure statistically significant DVH metrics were identified. These dose constraints were then validated on the 24-patient testing cohort. RESULTS: Existing literature dose constraints only had two dose constraints performing above 60% accuracy and sensitivity when evaluated on our training cohort. We identified two well-performing dose constraints: the pharyngeal constrictor muscle D63% < 55 Gy and the superior-middle pharyngeal constrictor combination structure V31Gy < 100%. Both dose constraints resulted in ≥73% mean accuracy and ≥80% mean sensitivity on the training and testing patient cohorts. In addition, a pharyngeal constrictor muscle mean dose <57 Gy resulted in a mean accuracy ≥74% and mean sensitivity ≥60%. CONCLUSION: Mid-dose pharyngeal constrictor muscle and substructure combination dose constraints should be used in the treatment planning process to reduce late patient-reported dysphagia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical OncologySame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207