MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Application of the International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC) to the Nova Scotia population of patients with germ cell tumors (GCT)

2006· article· en· W2272976337 on OpenAlexaffabout
E. Murphy, J. Douglas, K. Thompson, Lori Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortOncologyInternal medicinePopulationGerm cell tumorsNova scotiaChemotherapyRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

14625 Background: The IGCCC is the internationally accepted, clinically based, prognostic classification used to aid in the management of GCT. The goal of this study was to determine if the IGCCC is applicable to a population based cohort. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients diagnosed with GCT in NS between 1984–2004 was completed, and IGCCC classification (good, intermediate, poor) was assigned to each patient based on the site of the primary lesion, the presence or absence of non-pulmonary visceral metastases and pre-chemotherapy tumor marker values. Kaplan-Meier estimates of five year progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated for each IGCCC group, for both non-seminomatous GCT and seminomatous GCT. Results: The distribution, PFS and OS are shown below. Conclusions: The IGCCC seems applicable to a population-based cohort, with similar distribution of categories, as well as clear prognostic ability. This project was funded by a Norah Stephen Oncology Scholars Summer Studentship Grant from Cancer Care Nova Scotia. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicTesticular diseases and treatments→French-language works237,207→