MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138717155 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-2014

Serum Prognostic Markers in Head and Neck Cancer

2010· article· en· W2138717155 on OpenAlexaff
François Meyer, E Samson, Pierre Douville, Thierry Duchesne, Geoffrey Liu, Isabelle Bairati

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineMedicineOncologyHazard ratioQuartileConfidence intervalHead and neck cancerProportional hazards modelCancerHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaIncidence (geometry)Gastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Recognized prognostic factors do not adequately predict outcomes of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients after their initial treatment. We identified from the literature nine potential serum prognostic markers and assessed whether they improve outcome prediction. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A pretreatment serum sample was obtained from 527 of the 540 HNC patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial. During follow-up, 115 had a HNC recurrence, 110 had a second primary cancer (SPC), and 216 died. We measured nine potential serum prognostic markers: prolactin, soluble interleukin-2 (IL-2) receptor-alpha, vascular endothelial growth factor, IL-6, squamous cell carcinoma antigen, free beta-human choriogonadotropin, insulin-like growth factor-I, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3, and soluble epidermal growth factor receptor. Cox regression was used to identify a reference predictive model for (a) HNC recurrence, (b) SPC incidence, and (c) overall mortality. Each serum marker was added in turn to these reference models to determine by the likelihood ratio test whether it significantly improved outcome prediction. We controlled for the false discovery rate that results from multiple testing. RESULTS: IL-6 was the only serum marker that significantly improved outcome prediction. Higher levels of IL-6 were associated with a higher SPC incidence. The hazard ratio comparing the uppermost quartile to the lowest quartile of IL-6 was 2.68 (95% confidence interval, 1.49-4.08). IL-6 was also associated with SPC-specific mortality but not with mortality due to other causes. No marker improved outcome prediction for cancer recurrence or overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: IL-6 significantly improves outcome prediction for SPC in HNC patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207