MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validation of a genomic-clinical classifier for predicting clinical progression in high-risk prostate cancer.

2012· article· en· W2607480359 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Buerki, Anirban P. Mitra, Peter C. Black, Mercedeh Ghadessi, Eric J. Bergstralh, Nicholas Erho, R. W. Carlson, Anamaria Crisan, Thomas Sierocinski, Benedikt Zimmermann, Zaid Haddad, Ismael A. Vergara, Karla V. Ballman, George G. Klee, Stephanie Fink, Thomas M. Kollmeyer, Timothy J. Triche, Elai Davicioni, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Robert B. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyConcordanceProstate cancerCohortOncologyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4565 Background: The efficient delivery of adjuvant therapy after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with prostate cancer is limited by the lack of biomarkers, beyond clinicopathologic factors, that are able to assess the risk of clinically significant disease progression. Previously, routine FFPE patient specimens from the Mayo Clinic Radical Prostatectomy Registry with long term follow-up were selected to develop a genomic classifier (GC) to predict clinical progression. Here, we present the validation of a GC in a cohort of patients at high risk of disease progression. Methods: A case-cohort study of high-risk RP patients from the Mayo Clinic (N=219) was used to validate the genomic classifier (GC) for predicting clinical progression (defined by positive bone or CT scan post-RP). Its performance was compared to a multivariable clinical classifier (CC) and a genomic-clinical classifier (GCC) which combines GC with established clinicopathologic variables. Concordance index, Cox modeling and decision curve analysis were used to compare the different models. Results: GC and GCC were predictive of clinical progression in the high-risk cohort with c-indices of 0.79 and 0.82, respectively, compared to the clinical classifier (0.70). Multivariable survival analysis showed that the majority of prognostic information of GCC came from the GC with a minor contribution from Gleason score. Decision curve analysis showed that GCC had a higher overall net benefit compared to CC over a wide range of ‘decision-to-treat’ thresholds for the risk of progression. Conclusions: In this high-risk cohort, GC and GCC classifiers showed improved performance over CC in prediction of clinical progression. GC is an independent prognostic factor in this cohort and captures the majority of prognostic information. GC and GCC’s prognostic performance and their usefulness in guiding decision-making in the adjuvant setting after RP need further testing in studies of additional prostate cancer 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→