MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403514711 · doi:10.1002/cncr.29931

External validation of a multi‐institutional retroperitoneal sarcoma nomogram

2016· article· en· W2403514711 on OpenAlexaff
Chandrajit P. Raut, Rosalba Miceli, D. Strauß, Carol J. Swallow, Peter Hohenberger, Frits van Coevorden, Piotr Rutkowski, Marco Fiore, Dario Callegaro, Paolo G. Casali, Rick L. Haas, Andrew Hayes, Charles Honoré, Amanda J. Cannell, Jens Jakob, Milena Szacht, Mark Fairweather, Raphael E. Pollock, Sylvie Bonvalot, Alessandro Gronchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramMedicineConfidence intervalSarcomaConcordanceCohortSoft tissue sarcomaPrognostic variableRetrospective cohort studyRadiologyOncologyCancerInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A multi-institutional nomogram for predicting disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) incorporating relevant prognostic factors not included in the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for soft tissue sarcoma has been reported. The authors validated this nomogram with an independent, transatlantic cohort. METHODS: Data from patients with RPS who were undergoing definitive resection at 1 of 6 sarcoma centers in Europe and North America ("validation set") were used to validate a RPS nomogram developed from 3 other centers ("development set"). The nomogram incorporated 6 variables: age, tumor size, grade, histologic subtype, multifocality, and quality of surgery. Nomogram-predicted probabilities were stratified into 6 subgroups and compared with observed outcomes. Discriminative ability was quantified by Harrell C statistics. RESULTS: The validation and development sets included 631 and 523 patients, respectively, all of whom underwent surgical resection at the institutions represented. The 7-year DFS and OS rates for the validation set were 38% (95% confidence interval, 34%-43%) and 58% (95% confidence interval, 53%-63%), respectively. All 6 nomogram variables were found to be independently prognostic. The corrected Harrell C statistics concordance index values for the validation set were 0.69 for DFS and 0.73 for OS, which were similar to those for the development set, suggesting good calibration of the nomogram in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The RPS nomogram was externally validated using a larger, independent cohort. The nomogram can be generalized to patients undergoing surgery for RPS by specialized sarcoma surgeons at sarcoma centers. The nomogram provides a more individualized and disease-relevant estimation of OS compared with the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. Cancer 2016;122:1417-1424. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations102
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207