MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142088661 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-0372

Nomograms Provide Improved Accuracy for Predicting Survival after Radical Cystectomy

2006· article· en· W2142088661 on OpenAlexaff
Shahrokh F. Shariat, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Ganesh S. Palapattu, Gilad E. Amiel, Yair Lotan, Craig Rogers, Amnon Vazina, Patrick J. Bastian, Amit Gupta, Arthur I. Sagalowsky, Mark Schoenberg, Seth P. Lerner

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNomogramCystectomyBladder cancerLymphovascular invasionUrologyLymphadenectomyProportional hazards modelRadiation therapyStage (stratigraphy)AJCC staging systemCarcinoma in situLymph nodeSurgeryCancerOncologyInternal medicineMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To develop multivariate nomograms that determine the probabilities of all-cause and bladder cancer-specific survival after radical cystectomy and to compare their predictive accuracy to that of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging. METHODS: We used Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to model variables of 731 consecutive patients treated with radical cystectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Variables included age of patient, gender, pathologic stage (pT), pathologic grade, carcinoma in situ, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), lymph node status (pN), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACH), adjuvant chemotherapy (ACH), and adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (AXRT). Two hundred bootstrap resamples were used to reduce overfit bias and for internal validation. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 36.4 months, 290 of 731 (39.7%) patients died; 196 of 290 patients (67.6%) died of bladder cancer. Actuarial all-cause survival estimates were 56.3% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 51.8-60.6%] and 42.9% (95% CI, 37.3-48.4%) at 5 and 8 years after cystectomy, respectively. Actuarial cancer-specific survival estimates were 67.3% (62.9-71.3%) and 58.7% (52.7-64.2%) at 5 and 8 years, respectively. The accuracy of a nomogram for prediction of all-cause survival (0.732) that included patient age, pT, pN, LVI, NACH, ACH, and AXRT was significantly superior (P=0.001) to that of AJCC staging-based risk grouping (0.615). Similarly, the accuracy of a nomogram for prediction of cancer-specific survival that included pT, pN, LVI, NACH, and AXRT (0.791) was significantly superior (P=0.001) to that of AJCC staging-based risk grouping (0.663). CONCLUSIONS: Multivariate nomograms provide a more accurate and relevant individualized prediction of survival after cystectomy compared with conventional prediction models, thereby allowing for improved patient counseling and treatment selection.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations262
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207