MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An independent population-based validation of the adjuvant decision-aid for stage I-II breast cancer

2004· article· en· W2596571349 on OpenAlexaffabout
I. A. Olivotto, Chris Bajdik, Peter M. Ravdin, B. Norris, A. J. Coldman, C. Speers, Stephen Chia, Karen A. Gelmon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerLymphovascular invasionInternal medicineCancerTamoxifenPopulationStage (stratigraphy)Proportional hazards modelOncologyGynecologyAdjuvant therapyMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

522 Background: ADJUVANT! (ADJ! [JCO 2001;19:980–91]) is a computer model which predicts 10-yr overall (OS), breast cancer-specific (BCSS) and event-free (EFS) survival with and without systemic therapy using recognised prognostic factors. Oncologists use it to provide information to patients about prognosis and treatment choice. ADJ! has not been independently validated despite widespread use. Methods: Demographic, pathology, staging and treatment data on 4,083 women with pT1–2, pN0–1 breast cancer referred to the BC Cancer Agency during 1989–1993 were entered into ADJ! 10-yr predicted (pred) OS, BCSS and EFS were calculated for each patient. Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit observed (obs) status at 10 years (disease event yes/no; alive; dead of disease; dead of other cause) was independently determined for each patient. ADJ! pred and BCOU obs rates were compared. Study subject pathologic characteristics were: 66% pT1, 34% pN1, 58% ER+, 37% grade 3 and 36% with lymphovascular invasion (LVI+). Three percent were age 20–35 years, 9.7% were age >75 years. Systemic therapy was: none=45%, tamoxifen (TAM) alone=30%, chemo (CT) alone=16% and CT+TAM=9%. Results: Across all 4083 patients, 10-yr pred and obs outcomes were within +/− 1% for OS (pred=71.7%, obs=72%), BCSS (pred=83.2%, obs=82.5%) and EFS (pred=71%, obs=70.1%). ADJ! overestimated EFS in women ≤ 35 yrs (pred=67.9%, obs=54.3%; p<0.002) and with LVI+ disease (pred=66.5%, obs=62.3%, p<0.001). ADJ! predicted BCSS and EFS rates within +/− 2% for patients not receiving systemic therapy or receiving TAM alone. ADJ! overestimated EFS with CT (pred=65%, obs=61.3%; p=0.056) and especially with combined CT+TAM (pred=68.1%, obs=61.7%; p=0.012). Conclusions: Overall, ADJ! performed reliably. Two factors to be added to future revisions of ADJ! were identified: age ≤ 35 and LVI+. ADJ! was overly optimistic about the outcomes of combined CT+TAM (by about 5% absolute) for OS, BCSS and EFS. Validation in large population-based databases like the BCOU, supports the translation of prediction models into practice. Supported in part by the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Adjuvant, Inc. Adjuvant, Inc. Adjuvant, Inc.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.391 · 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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207