MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decision curve analysis assessing the clinical benefit of NMP22 in the detection of bladder cancer: secondary analysis of a prospective trial

2011· article· en· W1500047916 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher E. Barbieri, Thomas Chromecki, Allison Dunning, Yair Lotan, Robert S. Svatek, Douglas S. Scherr, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Maxine Sun, Madhu Mazumdar, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesAlere
KeywordsMedicineCystoscopyBladder cancerUrine cytologyProspective cohort studyUrinary systemUrologyCancerOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Type – Decision analysis (based on alternative scenarios) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Several studies have shown that abnormal levels of nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) are associated with bladder cancer, and NMP22 has been approved by the FDA as a urinary biomarker for bladder cancer detection and surveillance. However, the benefit of adding NMP22 to the clinical care of patients remains unclear. Decision curve analysis incorporates the consequences of clinical decisions, such as an increased number of unnecessary cystoscopies or missed cancers. OBJECTIVE To employ decision curve analysis to determine the impact of nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) on clinical decision making in the detection of bladder cancer using data from a prospective trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study included 1303 patients at risk for bladder cancer who underwent cystoscopy, urine cytology and measurement of urinary NMP22 levels. We constructed several prediction models to estimate risk of bladder cancer. The base model was generated using patient characteristics (age, gender, race, smoking and haematuria); cytology and NMP22 were added to the base model to determine effects on predictive accuracy. Clinical net benefit was calculated by summing the benefits and subtracting the harms and weighting these by the threshold probability at which a patient or clinician would opt for cystoscopy. RESULTS In all, 72 patients were found to have bladder cancer (5.5%). In univariate analyses, NMP22 was the strongest predictor of bladder cancer presence (predictive accuracy 71.3%), followed by age (67.5%) and cytology (64.3%). In multivariable prediction models, NMP22 improved the predictive accuracy of the base model by 8.2% (area under the curve 70.2–78.4%) and of the base model plus cytology by 4.2% (area under the curve 75.9–80.1%). Decision curve analysis revealed that adding NMP22 to other models increased clinical benefit, particularly at higher threshold probabilities. CONCLUSIONS NMP22 is a strong, independent predictor of bladder cancer. Addition of NMP22 improves the accuracy of standard predictors by a statistically and clinically significant margin. Decision curve analysis suggests that integration of NMP22 into clinical decision making helps avoid unnecessary cystoscopies, with minimal increased risk of missing a cancer.

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)0.167
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.246
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1670.246
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.033
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207