Accelerated Fractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Glottic Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to examine the outcomes of an accelerated fractionated irradiation for N0 glottic carcinoma. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, 29 patients with N0 glottic carcinoma treated by radiation therapy were enrolled. Thirteen patients had T1a disease, six had T1b disease, and ten had T2 disease. A fractional dose of 2.1 Gy was administered to seven patients. The total doses were 65.1 and 67.2 Gy in four and three patients, respectively. A fractional dose of 2.25 Gy was administered to 22 patients. The total doses were 63 and 67.5 Gy in 21 patients and 1 patient with T2 disease, respectively. Additionally, 13 patients underwent the use of TS-1 (80-100 mg per day). RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 33 months, and the 3-year local control rate was 95.6%. No patient had a lymph node or distant recurrence. As acute adverse events, grades 2 and 3 dermatitis were observed in 18 patients and 1 patient, and grades 2 and 3 mucositis were observed in 15 patients and 1 patient. As a late adverse event, one patient required tracheotomy because of laryngeal edema occurring. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerated fractionated irradiation may be an option in the radiation therapy of N0 glottic carcinoma because of its ability to shorten the treatment time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".