Tumour extent and T stage of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomographic findings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in defining the T stage and full tumour extent of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients with pathologically proven nasopharyngeal carcinoma underwent MRI and CT examinations within 2 weeks of each other. Contrast medium was used in both examinations. The T stage and full tumour extent according to MRI and CT were compared. RESULTS: In 32 patients MRI and CT findings agreed completely. MRI findings resulted in assignment of a higher stage than CT findings in another 8 patients. In the remaining 8 patients MRI showed wider tumour spread than CT, although there was no discordance in the T stage assigned. CONCLUSION: When compared with CT in defining the full tumour extent and assigning the T stage in 48 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma, MRI showed more extensive disease in 16 patients, including 8 in whom the T stage was revised upward. Therapy was altered as a result of the MRI findings.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".