MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Independent validation of a genomic classifier in an at-risk population of men conservatively managed after radical prostatectomy.

2014· article· en· W2240846239 on OpenAlexaff
Eric A. Klein, Jianbo Li, Andrew J. Stephenson, Kasra Yousefi, Michael W. Kattan, Cristina Magi‐Galluzzi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerNomogramPopulationCohortInternal medicineOncologyCumulative incidenceProportional hazards modelMetastasisRadiation therapyBone metastasisSurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

16 Background: Patients with locally advanced prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) are at risk for clinical progression and by current guidelines are candidates for adjuvant radiation. While clinical trials comparing adjuvant radiation to observation demonstrated benefits for many of these patients about 50% men on the control observation arm did not progress. This study evaluated whether a validated genomic classifier ([GC], Decipher) for predicting metastasis can be used to identify high-risk patients that may be spared unnecessary secondary therapy. The objective was to validate GC predictions in an at risk population conservatively managed after RP. Methods: A case-cohort design was used to sample patients with either preop PSA>20 ng/mL, pT3, positive surgical margin or Gleason score 8 or more disease, treated at Cleveland Clinic with RP from 1987 to 2008. Patients with lymph node metastasis or neo-adjuvant or adjuvant treatment were excluded. Cases were defined as local recurrence and/or regional/distant metastasis confirmed by biopsy or positive CT/bone scan. Random sampling of the cohort, including all cases, yielded 220 patients. Tissue was available for 196 and GC scores were generated for 184 patients. AUC for survival data, weighted Cox regression analysis and cumulative incidence adjusting for competing risk were used to assess GC performance for predicting distant metastasis (DM) in comparison to the 2005 Stephenson nomogram. Results: GC had an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.62-0.97) for predicting DM at 5 years post-RP. A combined GC-Stephenson model yielded an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.62-0.96). GC was the predominant predictor in multivariable Cox analysis with an HR of 1.55 (95% CI 1.25-1.90) for a 10% increase in score. Patients with high (21.7%) and low GC scores (58.7%) had a 3.97 fold higher and 3.88 fold lower incidence of DM at 5 years than the intermediate group (19.6%), respectively. Conclusions: We present results of a second, blinded independent validation study of GC performance in a conservatively managed RP cohort. In an at risk population use of GC may further allow identification of men that may be safely spared adjuvant radiation therapy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→