MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007908786 · doi:10.1002/cncr.23293

A nomogram predicting long‐term biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

2008· article· en· W2007908786 on OpenAlexaff
Nazareno Suardi, Christopher R. Porter, Alwyn M. Reuther, Jochen Walz, Koichi Kodama, Robert P. Gibbons, Roy J. Correa, Francesco Montorsi, Markus Graefen, Hartwig Huland, Eric A. Klein, Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramBiochemical recurrenceMedicineProstatectomyProportional hazards modelProstate cancerCohortStage (stratigraphy)Radiation therapyUrologyProstate-specific antigenInternal medicineOncologySurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Men who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP) are at long-term risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). In this report, the authors have described a model capable of predicting BCR up to at least 15 years after RP that can adjust predictions according to the disease-free interval. METHODS: Cox regression was used to model the probability of BCR (a prostate-specific antigen level>0.1 ng/mL and rising) in 601 men who underwent RP with a median follow-up of 11.4 years. The statistical significance of nomogram predictors was confirmed with a competing-risks regression model. The model was validated internally with 200 bootstraps and externally at 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years in 2 independent cohorts of 2963 and 3178 contemporary RP patients from 2 institutions. RESULTS: The 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, and 20-year actuarial rates of BCR-free survival were 84.8%, 71.2%, 61.1%, and 58.6%, respectively. Pathologic stage, surgical margin status, pathologic Gleason sum, type of RP, and adjuvant radiotherapy represented independent predictors of BCR in both Cox and competing-risks regression models and constituted the nomogram predictor variables. In internal validation, the nomogram accuracy was 79.3%, 77.2%, 79.7%, and 80.6% at 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and 20 years, respectively, after RP. In external validation, the nomogram was 77.4% accurate at 5 years in the first cohort and 77.9%, 79.4%, and 86.3% accurate at 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years, respectively, in the second cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo RP remain at risk of BCR beyond 10 years after RP. The nomogram described in this report distinguishes itself from other tools by its ability to accurately predict the conditional probability of BCR up to at least 15 years after surgery.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations146
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207