MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401090465 · doi:10.1002/hed.27887

A prospective cohort study on stereotactic radiotherapy in the management of dural recurrence of olfactory neuroblastoma

2024· article· en· W4401090465 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher D. Goodman, Franco DeMonte, Theresa Nguyen, Adam S. Garden, Catherine He Wang, Xin A. Wang, Kevin Diao, Anna Lee, Jay P. Reddy, Amy C. Moreno, Michael T. Spiotto, Clifton D. Fuller, D.I. Rosenthal, Renata Ferrarotto, Shaan M. Raza, Shirley Y. Su, Andrew Warner, Jack Phan

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyCohortRadiation therapySurgeryStereotactic radiotherapyRadiosurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Treatment for dural recurrence of olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB) is not standardized. We assess the outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in this population. METHODS: ONB patients with dural recurrences treated between 2013 and 2022 on a prospective registry were included. Tumor control, survival, and patient-reported quality of life were analyzed. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with 32 dural lesions were evaluated. Time to dural recurrence was 58.3 months. Thirty lesions (94%) were treated with SBRT to a median dose of 27 Gy in three fractions. Two patients (3 of 32 lesions; 9%) developed in-field radiographic progression, five patients (38%) experienced progression in non-contiguous dura. Two-year local control was 85% (95% CI: 51-96%). There were no >grade 3 acute toxicities and 1 case of late grade 3 brain radionecrosis. CONCLUSION: In this largest study of SBRT reirradiation for ONB dural recurrence to date, high local control rates with minimal toxicity were attainable.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207