MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Large retroperitoneal lymph nodes (RPLN) as a novel risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in germ cell tumor (GCT) patients (pts) receiving first-line chemotherapy (chemo).

2012· article· en· W2597463500 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Tran, Michel S. Beausoleil, Eitan Amir, Michael A.S. Jewett, Jeremy Sturgeon, Lynn Anson‐Cartwright, Peter Chung, Padraig Warde, Eric Winquist, Malcolm J. Moore, Philippe L. Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortVenous thromboembolismInternal medicineCancerRetrospective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)SurgeryThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4535 Background: VTE causes substantial morbidity and mortality in GCT pts. The Khorana model is a validated predictive model that stratifies VTE risk in cancer pts receiving chemo; Khorana score ≥3 (K3) identifies pts at high risk. Many GCT pts have bulky RPLN that can cause venous stasis in the lower limbs. This study examines the incidence of VTE in GCT pts and assesses large RPLN as a novel predictor of VTE risk. Methods: Retrospective data from the Princess Margaret Hospital GCT database was complemented by review of medical records. GCT pts receiving 1st line chemo between 2000-2010 were included. Pts diagnosed with VTE prior to chemo and pts receiving thromboprophylaxis (TP) were excluded. Pts diagnosed with VTE during or within 3 months of completing chemo were identified. Large RPLN were defined as having maximal diameter ≥5cm. Odds ratios for VTE risk with large RPLN and K3 were calculated. Discriminatory accuracy (DA) of each predictor was calculated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). An external cohort from London Regional Cancer Program, with similarly collected data, was used to validate results. Results: In the test cohort 21 (10%) of 216 pts developed VTE. Both large RPLN (OR 6.2, p<0.001) and K3 (OR 11.8, p<0.001) were significantly associated with VTE. Positive predictive value (PPV) was lower for large RPLN compared to K3 (21% v 44%, p<0.014) but sensitivity was greater (71% v 40%, p=0.001), while DA showed no difference (AUROC 0.73 v 0.67, p=0.46). In the validation cohort 10 (9%) of 111 pts developed VTE. There was a non significant trend for associations between VTE and both large RPLN (OR 2.54, p=0.16) and K3 (OR 4.5, p=0.13). When compared to K3, sensitivity was greater for large RPLN (60% v 20%, p=0.003), but there was no difference in PPV (14% v 29%, p=0.25) or DA (AUROC 0.61 v 0.57, p=0.72). Conclusions: VTE occurs in 1 in 10 GCT pts receiving curative chemotherapy. Large RPLN is a novel and clinically applicable predictor of VTE risk, although prospective validation would be beneficial. Randomized controlled trials of TP in GCT pts should be considered in pts at high risk of VTE, identified by large RPLN or K3.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→