MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403533475 · doi:10.1016/j.joms.2024.10.006

Depth of Invasion Threshold for Recommending Elective Neck Dissection in T1 or T2 Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

2024· article· en· W4403533475 on OpenAlexaffabout
H.A. Shih, Mehak Khanna, Jacob Thomas, Nicholas Makhoul, Michel El‐Hakim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeck dissectionBasal cellDissection (medical)SurgeryOncologyInternal medicineCarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is variability in the literature on the role of the depth of invasion (DOI) for recommending an elective neck dissection (END). PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to estimate the DOI threshold for recommending an END. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: A retrospective cohort study was performed at McGill University Health Centre from 2008 to 2018 with 5 years of follow-up. The sample was subjects with clinical T1/T2 oral squamous cell carcinoma and clinically negative neck. Subjects with previous head and neck cancer were excluded. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The primary predictor variable was DOI measured from the basement membrane of the adjacent normal mucosa on final pathology, coded as <4 mm or ≥4 mm. DOI is a continuous variable converted to a binary variable. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE: The main outcome variable was time to development of neck disease (RD+) defined as the time from surgery to development of pathologic nodes. Time to RD+ for pathologic nodes discovered from the END was considered 0 months. The secondary outcome variable was overall survival. COVARIATES: Demographics (age, sex, and smoking/alcohol history) and tumor characteristics (tumor location, clinical T, tumor differentiation, perineural invasion, and lymphovascular invasion) were analyzed. ANALYSES: test were used for bivariate analyses; P ≤ .05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: The final sample were 64 subjects (average age 65.25 [standard deviation 13.06] years and 36 [56.2%] males). Twenty-nine subjects had DOI < 4 mm, and the 5-year RD+ was 3.4% (the 1 occurrence of RD+ was at 5.3 months). Thirty-five subjects had DOI ≥ 4 mm, and the 5-year RD+ was 45.7% (15 subjects had RD+ discovered from the END, and 1 subject had RD+ at 7.6 months). DOI ≥ 4 mm had significantly higher risk of RD+ than DOI < 4 mm (hazard ratio 17.91; 95% confidence interval 2.37 to 135.3; P = .01), which remained significant after adjusting for clinical T, tumor differentiation, perineural invasion, and lymphovascular invasion (hazard ratio 9.53; 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 81.44; P < .05). The shallowest DOI with >20% risk of RD+ was in the DOI 4 mm to 4.9 mm group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma of T1 or T2 and clinically negative necks, END should be considered with DOI ≥ 4 mm.

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)0.006
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgerySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207