Nomograms Predicting Platinum Sensitivity, Progression-Free Survival, and Overall Survival Using Pretreatment Complete Blood Cell Counts in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the prognostic significance of pre-treatment complete blood cell count (CBC), including white blood cell (WBC) differential, in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients with primary debulking surgery (PDS) and to develop nomograms for platinum sensitivity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 757 patients with EOC whose primary treatment consisted of surgical debulking and chemotherapy at Samsung Medical Center from 2002 to 2012. We subsequently created nomograms for platinum sensitivity, 3-year PFS, and 5-year OS as prediction models for prognostic variables including age, stage, grade, cancer antigen 125 level, residual disease after PDS, and pre-treatment WBC differential counts. The models were then validated by 10-fold cross-validation (CV). RESULTS: In addition to stage and residual disease after PDS, which are known predictors, lymphocyte and monocyte count were found to be significant prognostic factors for platinum-sensitivity, platelet count for PFS, and neutrophil count for OS on multivariate analysis. The area under the curves of platinum sensitivity, 3-year PFS, and 5-year OS calculated by the 10-fold CV procedure were 0.7405, 0.8159, and 0.815, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prognostic factors including pre-treatment CBC were used to develop nomograms for platinum sensitivity, 3-year PFS, and 5-year OS of patients with EOC. These nomograms can be used to better estimate individual outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".