Innovative estimation of survival using log-normal survival modelling on ACCENT database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ACCENT database, with individual patient data for 20 898 patients from 18 colon cancer clinical trials, was used to support Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of 3-year disease-free survival as a surrogate for 5-year overall survival. We hypothesised substantive differences in survival estimation with log-normal modelling rather than standard Kaplan-Meier or Cox approaches. METHODS: Time to relapse, disease-free survival, and overall survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier, Cox, and log-normal approaches for male subjects aged 60-65 years, with stage III colon cancer, treated with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimens (with 5FU), or with surgery alone (without 5FU). RESULTS: Absolute differences between Cox and log-normal estimates with (without) 5FU varied by end point. The log-normal model had 5.8 (6.3)% higher estimated 3-year time to relapse than the Cox model; 4.8 (5.1)% higher 3-year disease-free survival; and 3.2 (2.2)% higher 5-year overall survival. Model checking indicated greater data support for the log-normal than the Cox model, with Cox and Kaplan-Meier estimates being more similar. All three model types indicate consistent evidence of treatment benefit on both 3-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival; patients allocated to 5FU had 5.0-6.7% higher 3-year disease-free survival and 5.3-6.8% higher 5-year overall survival. CONCLUSION: Substantive absolute differences between estimates of 3-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival with log-normal and Cox models were large enough to be clinically relevant, and warrant further consideration.
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 | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".