MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validation of a genomic-clinical classifier model for predicting clinical recurrence of patients with localized prostate cancer in a high-risk population.

2012· article· en· W2582197961 on OpenAlexaff
Robert B. Jenkins, Eric J. Bergstralh, Elai Davicioni, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Karla V. Ballman, Stephanie Fink, Peter C. Black, Mercedeh Ghadessi, Timothy J. Triche, George G. Klee, Thomas M. Kollmeyer, Ismael A. Vergara, Anamaria Crisan, Nicholas Erho, Thomas Sierocinski, Christine Buerki, Rachel E. Carlson, Diane E. Grill, Benedikt Zimmermann, Zaid Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerInternal medicineConcordanceLogistic regressionCohortOncologyProportional hazards modelPopulationBiochemical recurrenceCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

175 Background: The efficient delivery of adjuvant and salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer is hampered by a lack of biomarkers to assess the risk of clinically significant recurrence and progression. Methods: Mayo Clinic Radical Prostatectomy Registry (RP) patient specimens were selected from a case-control cohort with 14 years median follow-up for training and initial validation of an expression biomarker genomic classifier (GC). An independent, blinded case-cohort study of high-risk RP subjects was used to validate GC, comparing the performance of GC to a multivariate logistic regression clinical model (CM) and GC combined with clinical variables (genomic-clinical classifier, GCC) for predicting clinical recurrence (defined as positive bone or CT scan within 5 years after biochemical recurrence). The concordance index (c-index) and Cox model were used to evaluate discrimination and estimate the risk of clinical recurrence. Results: In the training subset (n=359), both GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.90 whereas CM had a c-index of 0.76. In the internal validation set (n=186), GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.76 and 0.75, while CM had a c-index of 0.69. In an independent high-risk study (n=219), GC and GCC had a c-index of 0.77 and 0.76, while CM had a c-index of 0.68. In subset analysis of Gleason score 7 patients within the high-risk group, GC and GCC showed improved discrimination with c-index of 0.78 and 0.76, respectively compared to 0.70 for CM. In the high-risk group, the risk of recurrence by GC model score quartiles at 5 years after RP was estimated at 1%, 5%, 5% and 18%. Conclusions: The GC model shows improved performance over CM in the prediction of clinical recurrence in a high-risk cohort and in subset analysis of Gleason score 7 patients. The addition of clinical variables to the GC model did not significantly contribute to classifier performance in patients with high-risk features. We are further testing the performance of the GC and GCC models and their usefulness in guiding decision-making (e.g., for the adjuvant therapy setting) in additional studies of prostate cancer clinical risk groups.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→