MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biliary tract cancer: A large institutional experience.

2012· article· en· W2560233749 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mairéad G. McNamara, Anne M. Horgan, Thomas Walter, Elizabeth McKeever, Trisha Min, A. S. Riga, David W. Hedley, Sean P. Cleary, Steven Gallinger, Paul D. Greig, Stefano Serra, Laura A. Dawson, Jennifer J. Knox

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortGallbladder cancerKlatskin tumorBiliary tract cancerAmpulla of VaterInternal medicineCancerStage (stratigraphy)GallbladderAdenocarcinomaGastroenterologyCarcinomaGemcitabineOncologySurgeryResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4109 Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) encompass both cholangiocarcinoma (CC), arising in intrahepatic, perihilar (klatskin), or distal biliary tree, ampulla of vater and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC). Prognosis is poor for majority of these patients (pts). Aim: To retrospectively review outcomes of pts, as practices/treatments evolve, who presented to a multidisciplinary team at tertiary referral center Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, with a diagnosis of BTC. Methods: 1057 pts were followed from 01/87 - 09/11. Complete demographics, performance status (PS), disease site, histological diagnosis, percentage receiving surgery with curative intent, chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), recurrence patterns and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. Results: The cohort includes 549 (52%) males, PS of 0-1 in 850 (80%), 2-3 in 87 (8%) pts. A histological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was confirmed in 885 (84%), 106 (10%) non diagnostic, 66 (6%) other. Definitive surgery was performed in 41% and adjuvant CT or concurrent CT/RT given in 20% and 8% respectively. CT or CT/RT was given for unresectable/metastatic disease in first line palliative setting in 395 (37%) and 18 pts (5%) respectively. Response to first line CT in GBC was 33% vs. 24% in CC (p=0.005) and med survival was 8.4 and 13.1 mo respectively (p=0.001). The OS for entire cohort of 1057 pts was 19.3 mo with survival for breakdown of tumor type, stage detailed in the table. At this time, 207 (20%) are still alive, 609 (58%) deceased, status unknown/pending in 241 (22%). Conclusions: This represents a large biliary cancer cohort with survival benchmarks obtained in modern era of multidisciplinary care. Different subsites clearly present at different stages and have different prognosis with treatments. Despite better responses for advanced disease on CT in GBC, survival was better in CC consistent with reported literature. Therapeutic advancement mandates finding additional drug options and appropriate adjuvant care. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207