MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405586360 · doi:10.52609/jmlph.v5i2.154

Evaluating the Efficacy of Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) Versus Radiotherapy, Chemotherapy, and Open Surgery in Treating Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OPSCC): A Systematic Review of Reviews

2024· review· en· W4405586360 on OpenAlex
Abdulrhman Alsayeg, Reem Alotaibi

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransoral robotic surgeryMedicineSystematic reviewHead and neck cancerRadiation therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Basal cellModalitiesSurgeryOncologyMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is a minimally invasive surgical approach for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) that aims to reduce morbidity and improve patients' quality of life without compromising oncological outcomes. In this study, we investigate the use of TORS in the management of OPSCC and compare it with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT), and open surgery. Method: We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews using PubMed, Cochrane databases, and grey literature. We also searched the reference lists of these articles. The keywords used were "trans-oral robotic surgery" OR "TORS" AND "oropharynx" OR "oropharyngeal cancer". The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews of human studies that focused on patients diagnosed with OPSCC. We excluded non-English articles without translations and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Result: Our review included a total of 10 studies, comprising 16,917 patients. TORS was found to have better oncological outcomes than other modalities, and was associated with similar overall survival and disease-free survival rates as IMRT and CCRT. Additionally, TORS was associated with less postoperative bleeding than open surgery. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that TORS is a safe and effective treatment option for OPSCC. It may be a good option for patients seeking a minimally invasive approach with less postoperative bleeding.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.192 · 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