Validation of Adjuvant!Online on Slovenian collective of early breast cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e11532 Background: Adjuvant!Online is a very useful tool for prognosis assessment of early breast cancer (EBC) patients. In the validation study, made on mostly untreated (45%) Canadian EBC patients, Adjuvant!Online proved to be a very reliable prognostic tool. The aim of our study was to validate Adjuvant!Online on EBC patients mainly treated with some kind of adjuvant systemic therapy. Methods: 753 EBC patients diagnosed and treated at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia, with at least 10-year follow-up were included into the study. All patients received radical local therapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy (ChT) was either CMF or anthracycline-based schema and hormonal therapy (HT) was mainly tamoxifen. Adjuvant!Online 8.0 individual prediction of OS was calculated (with default value of “minor problems” as comorbidity for all patients). The average prediction over all patients was compared to the observed 10-year OS. Results: The predicted and observed 10-year OS of the whole group were 65.5% and 61.5%, respectively. The differences between predicted and observed OS did not differ substantially in the subgroups of patients stratified according to the classical prognostic factors, however, a large difference was found when stratifying by adjuvant systemic therapy. The puzzling difference in patients without systemic therapy (ST) can be both due to small group size and due to special selection of these patients (comorbidity). Conclusions: According to our observation, Adjuvant!Online is a reliable tool for prognosis assessment in EBC patients treated with HT, but it seems to overestimate prognosis in patients treated with ChT, alone or in combination with HT. This is evident even for our collective of EBC patients mainly treated with the first generation ChT - CMF or anthracyclines. Apparently, both Adjuvant!Online and Overview overestimate the positive effect of ChT, disregarding the biologic characteristics of the tumors and inherent effect of HT in HR+ patients. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".