MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W8703051

T2 glottic carcinoma: analysis of recurrences in 36 cases undergoing primary transoral laser microsurgery resection.

2012· article· en· W8703051 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew H. Rigby, Luke F Reynolds, Robert D. Hart, Jonathan R B Trites, Timothy S. Brown, S Mark Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransoral laser microsurgerySurgeryMicrosurgeryCarcinomaSurvival analysisOverall survivalClinical endpointLarynxLaryngeal NeoplasmInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Between 2002 and 2008, over 100 patients with glottic carcinoma have undergone transoral laser microsurgical (TLM) resection at the QEII Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The objective of this study was to assess the oncologic outcomes for all cases staged as T2 in this cohort. METHODS: A prospective database was developed to monitor outcomes. All 36 cases of primary T2 glottic carcinoma were selected from the database for analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses evaluated the following end points at 36 months: overall survival, disease-specific survival, and local control and disease-free survival with one procedure. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier estimates of 36-month outcomes were 89% (SE 6.0%) overall survival and disease-specific survival, 81% (SE 7.1%) local control with one procedure, and 70% (SE 8.0%) disease-free survival with one procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The observed 36-month outcomes support the use of TLM as the primary treatment modality for T2 glottic cancers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207