MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024247307 · doi:10.1002/cncr.23665

Reply to Is There an Optimal Comorbidity Index for Prostate Cancer?

2008· article· en· W2024247307 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Neil Fleshner, Gary Naglie

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityMedicineDiseaseProstate cancerBladder cancerCancerGenitourinary systemCystectomyInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusKidney cancerOncologyProstateIntensive care medicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Drs. Cai and Bartoletti for their interest in our study1 and their comments. We concur that the measurement of comorbidity is important given its influence on decision-making and predicting prognosis in many malignant conditions, including other genitourinary malignancies. Indeed, in the area of bladder cancer, a recent decision analysis of the treatment of stage T1, high-risk (T1G3) bladder cancer demonstrated that the level of comorbidity had a significant impact on whether early cystectomy was preferred to initial intravesical bacillus Calmette–Guerin therapy, particularly among men or women aged 60 to 69 years.2 Along with prostate cancer and bladder cancer, comorbidity is likely to impact outcomes in patients with small kidney tumors. Moreover, comorbidity has been demonstrated to be a powerful predictor of overall survival in a variety of cancers, especially less aggressive tumors.3 Although Cai and Bartoletti suggest that diabetes and cardiovascular disease treated with anticoagulants are the most important comorbidities to consider, to our knowledge this is less well understood and may depend on the primary malignant disease, the outcomes in question, the perspective of the patient versus the physician, and other factors. For example, among many of our older patients, musculoskeletal disorders and cognitive impairment are perceived as more burdensome on a day-to-day basis than diabetes and heart disease,4 even though the latter conditions may have a greater impact on survival. However, we do concur that careful attention should be paid to both the type and severity of comorbidities among patients with slow-growing cancers. Shabbir M. H. Alibhai*, Neil E. Fleshner , Gary Naglie , * Division of General Internal Medicine, and Clinical Epidemiology, University Health Network, Geriatric Program, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Division of General Internal Medicine, and Clinical Epidemiology, University Health Network, Geriatric Program, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0240.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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