MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2250188469 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.008

Utilization of a Genomic Classifier for Prediction of Metastasis Following Salvage Radiation Therapy after Radical Prostatectomy

2016· article· en· W2250188469 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Freedland, Voleak Choeurng, Lauren E. Howard, Amanda M. De Hoedt, Marguerite du Plessis, Kasra Yousefi, Lucia L.C. Lam, Christine Buerki, Seong Ra, Bruce A. Robbins, Edouard J. Trabulsi, Nikhil Shah, Firas Abdollah, Felix Y. Feng, Elai Davicioni, Adam P. Dicker, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Robert B. Den

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerRadiation therapySalvage therapyClassifier (UML)MetastasisUrologyOncologyInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite salvage radiation therapy (SRT) for recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP), some patients still progress to metastases. Identifying these men would allow them to undergo systemic therapy including testing novel therapies to reduce metastases risk. OBJECTIVE: To test whether the genomic classifier (GC) predicts development of metastatic disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective multi-center and multi-ethnic cohort study from two academic centers and one Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the United States involving 170 men receiving SRT for recurrent PCa post-RP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Time from SRT to development of metastatic disease tested using Cox regression, survival c-index, and decision curve analysis. Performance of GC was compared to the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Score and Briganti risk models based on these metrics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: With a median 5.7 yr follow-up after SRT, 20 patients (12%) developed metastases. On multivariable analysis, for each 0.1 unit increase in GC (scaled from 0 to 1), the hazard ratio for metastasis was 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.16-2.17; p=0.002). Adjusting for androgen deprivation therapy did not materially change the results. The c-index for GC was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.88) versus 0.63-0.65 for published clinico-pathologic risk models. The 5-yr cumulative incidence of metastasis post-SRT in patients with low, intermediate, and high GC scores was 2.7%, 8.4%, and 33.1%, respectively (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While validation in larger, prospectively collected cohorts is required, these data suggest GC is a strong predictor of metastases among men receiving SRT for recurrent PCa post-RP, accurately identifying men who are excellent candidates for systemic therapy due to their very high-risk of metastases. PATIENT SUMMARY: Genomic classifier and two clinico-pathologic risk models were evaluated on their ability to predict metastases among men receiving salvage radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Genomic classifier was able to identify candidates for further therapies due to their very high-risk of metastases.

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)0.012
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations80
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207