MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154646573 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu503

Validation of a new approach for mortality risk assessment in oesophagectomy for cancer based on age- and gender-corrected body mass index

2015· article· en· W2154646573 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Van Veer, Johnny Moons, Gail Darling, Willy Coosemans, Thomas K. Waddell, Paul De Leyn, Philippe Nafteux

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody mass indexCancerIndex (typography)MedicineRisk assessmentDemographyGerontologyInternal medicineComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We developed a new algorithm to identify high-risk patients for underweight after oesophagectomy for cancer. Patients were assigned to an age-gender-specific body mass index percentile (AG-BMI) which is then used in a survival analysis. This model was able to identify patients more at risk for being underweight in comparison with the classically used BMI. It shows a worse overall survival (OS) in patients with a preoperative AG-BMI < 10th percentile. The aim of this study is to validate this new model based on a cohort of patients from an external high-volume institution specialized in oesophageal cancer surgery. METHODS: The validation cohort consists of 407 patients operated on between 1999 and 2012 with the prerequisite data to calculate AG-BMI and OS. The base cohort consisted of 642 consecutive patients, operated on in our institution between 2005 and 2010. Age, gender, height and weight on the day before surgery were used to calculate the BMI and the AG-BMI. OS was analysed and a multivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: Incidence rates of the AG-BMI < 10th percentile risk-patients in the validation cohort showed similar results to our original results (17.8 vs 17.2% for the base cohort) with a similar significant OS difference between at-risk patients and not-at-risk patients (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis found the same five independent prognosticators for OS in both datasets: age, early versus advanced disease, resection status, number of positive lymph nodes and the AG-BMI 10th percentile, but not BMI itself. In the validation cohort, gender was identified as an additional independent prognosticator. The worse OS survival in AG-BMI < 10th percentile in both patient populations was related to a significantly higher number of deaths without oesophageal cancer recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the newly developed AG-BMI model to predict more accurately a subgroup of patients at risk for worse survival after oesophagectomy. Improved perioperative identification of risk factors for poorer OS could help to develop perioperative strategies to reduce these risks.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207