MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical role of a new prognostic score using platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma undergoing extrapleural pneumonectomy.

2015· article· en· W2176163282 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tetsuzo Tagawa, Masaki Anraku, Yosuke Morodomi, Tomoyoshi Takenaka, Tatsuro Okamoto, Mitsuhiro Takenoyama, Yukito Ichinose, Yoshihiko Maehara, B. C. John Cho, Ronald Feld, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Natasha B. Leighl, Andrea Bezjak, Shaf Keshavjee, Marc de Perrot

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortInternal medicineExtrapleural PneumonectomyMesotheliomaReceiver operating characteristicMultivariate analysisFramingham Risk ScoreSurgeryPneumonectomyOncologyPathologyLung cancerDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To investigate the prognostic value of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and create a new prognostic score in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) undergoing extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP). METHODS: Of 85 patients who underwent EPP for MPM over 10 years at Toronto General Hospital, 65 patients whose blood test results before initial therapy were available were retrospectively analyzed as a training cohort to identify and develop a prognostic score. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to examine cutoff values of hematologic parameters for survival. The prognostic score was externally validated in a cohort of 32 patients who underwent EPP for MPM over 13 years at two institutes in Japan. RESULTS: In the training cohort, multivariate analysis confirmed sex (P=0.0053) and PLR (P=0.049) as independent predictors of overall survival. The prognostic score was established using sex and PLR. The score was defined as follows: female:male =0:1 point; PLR <215:>215=0:1 point. The patients were classified into three risk groups according to the sum of the points: risk 0 (0 point), 1 (1 point), and 2 (2 points). Median survival time of the patients in the training cohort according to the risk groups were not reached, 32.0 and 19.4 months for risk 0 (n=6), 1 (n=36) and 2 (n=23), respectively (P=0.0006). In the validation cohort, median survival time was not reached, 45.9 and 14.5 months for risk 0 (n=4), 1 (n=18) and 2 (n=10), respectively (P=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The new prognostic score using PLR is simple and useful for predicting the prognosis of patients with MPM undergoing EPP. Further study should be done to examine the role of this scoring system to optimize treatment strategy.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207