MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real‐Time Individual Predictions of Prostate Cancer Recurrence Using Joint Models

2013· article· en· W1920526183 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy M. G. Taylor, Yongseok Park, Donna P. Ankerst, Cécile Proust‐Lima, Scott Williams, Larry L. Kestin, Kyoungwha Bae, Tom Pickles, Howard M. Sandler

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsProstate cancerMarkov chain Monte CarloBayesian probabilityComputer scienceMedicineProstate-specific antigenStatisticsMedical physicsCancerArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients who were previously treated for prostate cancer with radiation therapy are monitored at regular intervals using a laboratory test called Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). If the value of the PSA test starts to rise, this is an indication that the prostate cancer is more likely to recur, and the patient may wish to initiate new treatments. Such patients could be helped in making medical decisions by an accurate estimate of the probability of recurrence of the cancer in the next few years. In this article, we describe the methodology for giving the probability of recurrence for a new patient, as implemented on a web-based calculator. The methods use a joint longitudinal survival model. The model is developed on a training dataset of 2386 patients and tested on a dataset of 846 patients. Bayesian estimation methods are used with one Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm developed for estimation of the parameters from the training dataset and a second quick MCMC developed for prediction of the risk of recurrence that uses the longitudinal PSA measures from a new patient.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations117
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207