A nomogram is more accurate than a regression tree in predicting lymph node invasion in prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance and discriminant properties of two instruments (a tree-structured regression model and a logistic regression-based nomogram), recently developed to predict lymph node invasion (LNI) at radical prostatectomy (RP), in a contemporary cohort of European patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The cohort comprised 1525 consecutive men treated with RP and bilateral pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in two tertiary academic centres in Europe. Clinical stage, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and biopsy Gleason sum were used to test the ability of the regression tree and the nomogram to predict LNI. Accuracy was quantified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). All analyses were repeated for each participating institution. RESULTS: The AUC for the nomogram was 81%, vs 77% for the regression tree (P = 0.007). When data were stratified according to institution, the nomogram invariably had a higher AUC than the regression tree (Hamburg cohort: nomogram 82.1% vs regression tree 77.0%, P = 0.002; Milan cohort: 82.4% vs 75.9%, respectively; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Nomogram-based predictions of LNI were more accurate than those derived from a regression tree; therefore, we recommend the use of nomogram-derived predictions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".