MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511833681 · doi:10.1002/cncr.22300

Low serum albumin levels and liver metastasis are powerful prognostic markers for survival in patients with carcinomas of unknown primary site

2006· article· en· W2511833681 on OpenAlexaffabout
P. Sève, Isabelle Ray‐Coquard, V. Trillet-Lenoir, Michael B. Sawyer, John Hanson, C. Broussolle, Sylvie Négrier, Charles Dumontet, John R. Mackey

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHospices Civils de Lyon
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyMetastasisMultivariate analysisUnivariate analysisAlbuminSerum albuminPerformance statusCancerPopulationLactate dehydrogenaseOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The authors investigated how lymphopenia and low serum albumin levels correlate with the prognosis of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). METHODS: Univariate and multivariate prognostic factor analyses were conducted in a population of 317 consecutive patients with CUP who were evaluated at the Cross Cancer Institute of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, from 1998 to 2004. RESULTS: The results from multivariate analysis showed that patients who had a performance status >/=2 (using the World Health Organization scale), a high overall comorbidity score (on the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27), liver metastasis, elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, lymphopenia (defined as an absolute lymphocyte count >/=0.7 x 10(9)/L), and low serum albumin levels had a worse prognosis. Based on the observation that the presence of liver metastasis and low serum albumin levels were the most powerful adverse prognostic factors, a classification scheme was delineated that took those 2 variables into account. A group of good-risk patients (no liver metastasis and normal serum albumin levels) and a group of poor-risk patients (liver metastasis and/or low serum albumin levels) were identified with median survivals of 371 days and 103 days, respectively (P < .0001). This classification was validated further in an independent data set of 124 patients who were evaluated at 2 French cancer centers: Among those patients, the median survival was 378 days in the good-risk group and 90 days in the poor-risk group (P < .0001). The new prognostic model substantially outperformed the previous standard prognostic model, which was based on performance status and serum LDH levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lymphopenia and low serum albumin levels were identified as 2 new independent markers of prognosis in patients with CUP. Although the authors confirmed the validity of the previous prognostic model, they developed and validated a more powerful, simple model based on the 2 most powerful adverse prognostic factors: liver metastasis and low serum albumin levels. These findings were confirmed in an independent cohort of patients with CUP, and consideration of the authors' improved prognostic model for survival of patients with CUP is warranted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations115
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicCancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207