Analysis of an observational registry of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients (pts) in the United States: reGISTry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10557 Background: This observational reGISTry, initiated 11/04, characterizes the evolving patterns of care for GIST, such as the recent use and approval of Imatinib mesylate (IM) in adjuvant GIST. Methods: Data from consented pts (e.g. demographics, clinical characteristics, therapy, outcomes) are entered onto a web-based database. Updated analyses are performed every 6 months (mo), with data from unique sites being compared to the aggregate. Results: 792 pts enrolled from 121 centers, 55% from community practices. 79% were diagnosed with localized tumor, 87% of which received surgery as primary treatment. 94% had c-kit testing and 4% had mutational analysis performed at any time (1.4% of the pts in the community; 7.8% in Universities). 59% of pts had mutations in KIT Exon 11, 12% in Exon 9, 3% in Exon 17, 9% in PDGFRA Exon 18 and 18% had no detectable mutations. 13% of pts from Universities were enrolled in clinical trials vs 3% in the community. 78% of pts receiving IM at any time started at 400mg qd and 70% of pts receiving Sunitinib malate (SU) started at 50mg (4 wks on, 2 wks off). 6.6% of all pts received neoadjuvant IM, for a median of 4.3 mo for those pts that have completed (81%). 120 pts (15%) received adjuvant IM (13% of the pts in the community; 17% in Universities). Prior to Jun07 (ACOSOG Z9001 adjuvant IM positive results released) 14% of eligible pts received adjuvant IM vs 29% after Jun07. Median duration of adjuvant IM was 361 days for those pts that have completed (43%). Conclusions: reGISTry is a useful tool for measuring evolving pt management patterns in GIST capturing treatment variations from standard guidelines and differentiating management in Universities from that occurring in the community. Mutational analysis and clinical trial participation are still infrequent. The starting dose of IM and SU remains 400mg and 50mg, respectively, for most pts. The use of adjuvant IM has increased after Jun 07, suggesting that prescribing habits may have been influenced by evolving study data in these pts. [Table: see text] [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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".