MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587671315 · doi:10.1093/icvts/ivv204.120

F-120PATIENT-DERIVED SCORE BETTER DISCRIMINATOR OF OVERALL SURVIVAL THAN CLINICIAN-ASSIGNED ECOG STATUS

2015· article· en· W2587671315 on OpenAlexaffabout
Biniam Kidane, Joanne Sulman, Wei Xu, Q.Q. Kong, Rebecca Wong, Jennifer J. Knox, Gail Darling

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscriminatorOverall survivalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Oesophagus (FACT-E) is a validated health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instrument containing an oesophageal cancer subscale (ECS). Our objective was to assess the discriminative ability of baseline FACT-E and ECS as compared to ECOG performance status in predicting overall survival in patients with Stage II-IV cancer of the gastro-oesophageal junction or thoracic oesophagus. Methods: Data from 4 Canadian prospective studies were combined. These studies included consecutive patients with clinical stage II-IV cancer of the gastro-oesophageal junction or thoracic oesophagus who received chemoradiation either as neoadjuvant or definitive therapy. One study utilized adjuvant sunitinib. Three separate Cox regressions were performed with overall survival as the outcome and FACT-E, ECS and ECOG as the main predictors, respectively. These regressions controlled for age, stage, histology and treatment intent (curative vs palliative). Results: Overall, 128 patients had complete data. Mean age was 60.1 ± 10.3 years with 69.5% (n = 89) adenocarcinomas. Eight (6.3%) patients had palliative-intent therapy. Fourteen (10.9%) patients had sunitinib. Seventy-five deaths were observed. Mean FACT-E and ECS scores were 79.1 + 17.9 and 47.1 + 12.7, respectively. Overall, 39.8% (n = 51), 58.6% (n = 75) and 1.6% (n = 2) had ECOG performance statuses 0, 1 and 2, respectively. Baseline FACT-E and ECS independently predicted survival (both P < 0.001) whereas ECOG did not (P = 0.91). The regression models using FACT-E and ECS demonstrated better discrimination than the model utilizing ECOG (c-statistics 0.63 and 0.65 vs 0.51). Conclusions: In patients with stage II-IV oesophageal cancer being considered for chemoradiation therapy, baseline FACT-E and ECS appear to have better discrimination for survival than ECOG. The majority of patients were ECOG 0/1. Thus, these patient-derived scores were able to discriminate survivors from non-survivors even within this constrained range of clinician-assigned performance status. This highlights the potential utility of FACT-E and ECS as prognostic tools in practice and trials. Disclosure: No significant relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic SurgerySame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207