MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Change in bone alkaline phosphatase as an outcome predictor in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer metastasized to bone

2004· article· en· W2605108538 on OpenAlexaff
Ann Allen, Farid Saad, S. M. Hulting, Jeffrey D. Isaacson, Darryl J. Sleep

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerInternal medicineHazard ratioUrologyAlkaline phosphataseProportional hazards modelPlaceboClinical endpointOncologyCancerRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4655 Background: Bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP) has been validated as a potential predictor of survival in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients. Phase 2 results show that atrasentan, a potent, selective, oral endothelin A receptor antagonist, significantly attenuates BAP increase in men with metastatic HRPC. We tested the hypothesis that BAP change predicts time to disease progression (TTP) and survival in men with HRPC metastasized to bone. Methods: Data from 684* HRPC patients with bony metastases included in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of atrasentan were stratified by the treatment-pooled median change in BAP from baseline at weeks 4, 8, and 12. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methodologies were used to compare TTP (a composite of radiographic and clinical measures) and survival in each group at each time point. Atrasentan treatment effect was analyzed using analysis of covariance comparing changes in BAP from baseline between treatment arms. Results: TTP was significantly delayed in patients whose change from baseline in BAP was lower than the pooled median change at that time point versus those whose change was higher than the median (table). Survival was also prolonged in patients with a BAP change from baseline below the median versus those above the median (week 4: HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.99–1.67, p=0.057; week 8: HR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.34–2.34, p<0.001; week 12: HR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.31–2.40, p<0.001). Atrasentan resulted in a significantly lower mean change in BAP from baseline at weeks 4, 8, and 12 versus placebo (p<0.001, p=0.006, p=0.001). Conclusion: These data support the hypothesis that change in BAP is predictive of TTP and survival in HRPC patients with bony metastases. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Abbott Laboratories Abbott Laboratories Abbott Laboratories

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)0.002
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.365 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→