Clinical role of a new prognostic score using platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma undergoing extrapleural pneumonectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".