MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052562958 · doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.372

Accuracy of the EORTC risk tables and of the CUETO scoring model to predict outcomes in non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder

2013· article· en· W2052562958 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsConcordanceMedicineProportional hazards modelOncologyDiseaseInternal medicineBladder cancerHazard ratioCohortRetrospective cohort studyCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) risk tables and the Spanish Urological Club for Oncological Treatment (CUETO) scoring model are the two best-established predictive tools to help decision making for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The aim of the current study was to assess the performance of these predictive tools in a large multicentre cohort of NMIBC patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 4689 patients with NMIBC. To evaluate the discrimination of the models, we created Cox proportional hazard regression models for time to disease recurrence and progression. We incorporated the patients calculated risk score as a predictor into both of these models and then calculated their discrimination (concordance indexes). We compared the concordance index of our models with the concordance index reported for the models. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 57 months, 2110 patients experienced disease recurrence and 591 patients experienced disease progression. Both tools exhibited a poor discrimination for disease recurrence and progression (0.597 and 0.662, and 0.523 and 0.616, respectively, for the EORTC and CUETO models). The EORTC tables overestimated the risk of disease recurrence and progression in high-risk patients. The discrimination of the EORTC tables was even lower in the subgroup of patients treated with BCG (0.554 and 0.576 for disease recurrence and progression, respectively). Conversely, the discrimination of the CUETO model increased in BCG-treated patients (0.597 and 0.645 for disease recurrence and progression, respectively). However, both models overestimated the risk of disease progression in high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: The EORTC risk tables and the CUETO scoring system exhibit a poor discrimination for both disease recurrence and progression in NMIBC patients. These models overestimated the risk of disease recurrence and progression in high-risk patients. These overestimations remained in BCG-treated patients, especially for the EORTC tables. These results underline the need for improving our current predictive tools. However, our study is limited by its retrospective and multi-institutional design.

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.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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