Impact of Transoral Robotic Surgery Versus Radiation on Swallowing Function in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients: A Sub‐Study From a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This ORATOR sub-study evaluated swallowing physiology in patients treated with transoral robotic surgery (TORS) versus radiotherapy (RT) for early-stage oropharynx cancer. METHODS: Swallowing physiology was evaluated using videofluoroscopy and outcomes were compared across treatment arms and correlated with MDADI scores. RESULTS: Of the 68 patients in the ORATOR trial, 21 participated in this sub-study (30.8%), including 15 RT Arm and six TORS Arm patients. Swallowing profiles were not significantly different between the arms. MBSImP pharyngeal scores for RT Arm versus TORS Arm patients were 4.8 (±2.1) versus 4.3 (±1.5) at baseline, 6.2 (±1.2) versus 9.6 (±4.8) at 6 months and 5.9 (±1.8) versus 8.0 (±4.7) at 12 months. MBSImP pharyngeal scores demonstrated weak associations with several MDADI subscales and PAS scores. CONCLUSIONS: To best describe swallowing outcomes in studies of RT and/or surgery, instrumental swallowing assessments should be strongly considered in addition to quality of life measures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".