MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1584434888 · doi:10.1002/cncr.25903

Assessing the clinical benefit of nuclear matrix protein 22 in the surveillance of patients with nonmuscle‐invasive bladder cancer and negative cytology

2011· article· en· W1584434888 on OpenAlexaff
Shahrokh F. Shariat, Caroline Savage, Thomas Chromecki, Maxine Sun, Douglas S. Scherr, Richard K. Lee, Giovanni Lughezzani, Mesut Remzi, Michael Marberger, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Andrew J. Vickers

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineCystoscopyBladder cancerUrine cytologyCytologyCancerUrologyUrinary systemFalse positive paradoxOncologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated that abnormal levels of nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) are associated with bladder cancer and have led to the approval of NMP22 as a urinary biomarker by the US Food and Drug Administration. Nonetheless, the clinical significance of NMP22 remains unclear. The objective of this study was to use decision analysis to determine whether NMP22 improves medical decision-making. METHODS: The current study included 2222 patients who had a history of nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer and current negative cytology. The authors developed models to predict cancer recurrence or progression to muscle-invasive disease using voided NMP22 levels, cystoscopy, age, and sex. Clinical net benefit was calculated by summing the benefits (true-positives), subtracting the harms (false-positives), and weighting these values by the threshold probability at which a patient or clinician would opt for cytoscopy. RESULTS: After cystoscopy, 581 patients (26%) had cancer identified. The NMP22 level was associated significantly with bladder cancer recurrence and progression (P < .001 for both). The use of NMP22 in a model with age and sex was associated with better patient outcomes than performing cystoscopy on everyone and produced threshold probabilities > 8% for recurrence and > 3% for progression. Only offering cystoscopy to those who had a risk > 15% reduced the number of cystoscopies by 229 while missing only 25 cancer recurrences per 1000 men with negative cytology. The current study was limited by its multicenter design. CONCLUSIONS: For clinicians who would perform a cystoscopy at a threshold of 5% for recurrence or 1% for progression, NMP22 did not aid clinical decision-making. For less risk-averse clinicians who would only perform a cystoscopy at a threshold probability >thinsp;8% for recurrence or > 3% for progression, NMP22 helped to indicate which patients required cystoscopy and which could be spared this procedure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207