Flexible modeling improves assessment of prognostic value of C-reactive protein in advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) is gaining credibility as a prognostic factor in different cancers. Cox's proportional hazard (PH) model is usually used to assess prognostic factors. However, this model imposes a priori assumptions, which are rarely tested, that (1) the hazard ratio associated with each prognostic factor remains constant across the follow-up (PH assumption) and (2) the relationship between a continuous predictor and the logarithm of the mortality hazard is linear (linearity assumption). METHODS: We tested these two assumptions of the Cox's PH model for CRP, using a flexible statistical model, while adjusting for other known prognostic factors, in a cohort of 269 patients newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RESULTS: In the Cox's PH model, high CRP increased the risk of death (HR=1.11 per each doubling of CRP value, 95% CI: 1.03-1.20, P=0.008). However, both the PH assumption (P=0.033) and the linearity assumption (P=0.015) were rejected for CRP, measured at the initiation of chemotherapy, which kept its prognostic value for approximately 18 months. CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows that flexible modeling provides new insights regarding the value of CRP as a prognostic factor in NSCLC and that Cox's PH model underestimates early risks associated with high CRP.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".