MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extent of lymphadenectomy does not improve the survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma and nodal metastases: biases associated with the handling of missing data

2013· article· en· W1574553070 on OpenAlexaff
Maxine Sun, Quoc‐Dien Trinh, Marco Bianchi, Jens Hansen, Firas Abdollah, Zhe Tian, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Francesco Montorsi, Paul Perrotte, Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrectomyMissing dataLymphadenectomyRenal cell carcinomaHazard ratioLymph nodeProportional hazards modelPopulationDissection (medical)Imputation (statistics)UrologyOncologyInternal medicineNomogramSurgeryKidneyConfidence intervalStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: A recent population-based analysis suggested a potential survival benefit with respect to performing lymph node dissection at nephrectomy in node-positive patients with RCC. The findings of the present study failed to corroborate the association of a survival benefit with the performance of lymph node dissection at nephrectomy. OBJECTIVE: Previous studies showed no survival benefit with respect to performing lymph node dissection (LND) at nephrectomy, whereas a recent population-based analysis suggested otherwise, although the latter relied on imputation. To reconcile the findings of that study by critically evaluating the handling of missing data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Study participants comprised patients diagnosed with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) of all stages who underwent LND at nephrectomy (n = 10 596). Multivariable Cox regression models were performed to predict cancer-specific mortality (CSM), where the primary variable of interest was the extent of LND. To examine differences in approaches with respect to handling missing data, separate analyses were performed: (i) imputed population; (ii) exclusion of patients with missing data; and (iii) inclusion of patients with missing data as a sub-category. RESULTS: Overall, 2916 (28%) patients had missing tumour grade. In multivariable analyses, our findings showed that increasing the extent of LND was associated with a significant protective effect on CSM in patients with pN1 after imputation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; P = 0.04). By contrast, the extent of LND was no longer significantly associated with a lower risk of CSM after excluding patients with a missing tumour grade (HR, 0.83; P = 0.1) or when including patients with missing tumour grade as a sub-category (HR, 0.82; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study failed to corroborate the association of a survival benefit with increasing extent of LND at nephrectomy. The different methodologies employed to account for missing data may introduce important biases. Such considerations are non-negligible with respect to the interpretation of results for investigators who rely on administrative cohorts.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations39
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207