Impact of Postoperative Neck Radiotherapy Volumes on Long‐Term Unstimulated Saliva Flow Following Primary Surgery and Ipsilateral Neck Dissection for Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigate the association of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) volumes and salivary function in oral cavity SCC (OSCC). METHODS: OSCC patients undergoing PORT 2005-2021 underwent modified Schirmer test (MST) pre-PORT, 6 and/or 12 months post-PORT. Hyposalivation rates were compared by PORT volumes. MVA identified predictors for chronic hyposalivation. RESULTS: Among 165 eligible patients, 88 (53%) received bilateral, 66 (40%) ipsilateral, and 11 (7%) no-neck (primary-only) PORT. Baseline characteristics were similar, except more N2b/N2c disease received bilateral PORT vs. ipsilateral or no-neck (60% vs. 36% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Baseline hyposalivation was similar (26% vs. 30% vs. 18%, p = 0.67). Hyposalivation occurred more frequently in bilateral vs. ipsilateral vs. no-neck PORT at 6 (90% vs. 62% vs. 9%) and 12 months (90% vs. 48% vs. 0%) (both p < 0.001). On MVA, bilateral neck PORT and smoking predicted chronic hyposalivation. CONCLUSION: Increasing PORT volumes predict saliva function recovery and chronic hyposalivation, informing treatment discussions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".