Predictive models and prognostic factors for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a comprehensive review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of customized patient care for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), decision-making could be facilitated by risk assessment and prediction tools. The aim of this study was to provide a critical overview of existing predictive models and to review emerging promising prognostic factors for UTUC. A literature search of articles published in English from January 2000 to June 2016 was performed using PubMed. Studies on risk group stratification models and predictive tools in UTUC were selected, together with studies on predictive factors and biomarkers associated with advanced-stage UTUC and oncological outcomes after surgery. Various predictive tools have been described for advanced-stage UTUC assessment, disease recurrence and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Most of these models are based on well-established prognostic factors such as tumor stage, grade and lymph node (LN) metastasis, but some also integrate newly described prognostic factors and biomarkers. These new prediction tools seem to reach a high level of accuracy, but they lack external validation and decision-making analysis. The combinations of patient-, pathology- and surgery-related factors together with novel biomarkers have led to promising predictive tools for oncological outcomes in UTUC. However, external validation of these predictive models is a prerequisite before their introduction into daily practice. New models predicting response to therapy are urgently needed to allow accurate and safe individualized management in this heterogeneous disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".