MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Combined clinical and genetic risk prediction of central nervous system subsequent neoplasms (CNS SNs) in childhood cancer survivors (CCS): A report from the COG ALTE03N1 study.

2016· article· en· W2767298955 on OpenAlexaff
Xuexia Wang, Can‐Lan Sun, Lindsey Hageman, Kandice Barnett, Sunil Desai, Douglas S. Hawkins, Melissa M. Hudson, Leo Mascarenhas, Joseph Philip Neglia, Kevin C. Oeffinger, A. Kim Ritchey, Leslie L. Robison, Doojduen Villaluna, Wendy Landier, Smita Bhatia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNomogramCogReceiver operating characteristicOncologyCancerInternal medicineGenotypingSingle-nucleotide polymorphismArea under the curveClinical endpointGenotypeGeneticsGeneClinical trialBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10511 Background: CCS are at a 10-fold increased risk of CNS SNs. Cranial radiation (CRT) for primary cancer increases the risk; dose-risk relation with CRT is linear. The substantial burden of CNS SN-related morbidity presents an unmet need for identifying high-risk patients to guide targeted interventions. We present a risk prediction model to address this gap. Methods: CCS with CNS SNs (cases: n=82) matched to CCS without CNS SNs (controls: n=228; matched on primary cancer diagnosis (dx), year of dx, race/ethnicity and follow-up), contributed germline DNA for genotyping 43 previously published candidate genes (97 SNPs). Risk prediction models were derived sequentially: Base Model (age at primary cancer dx, gender), Clinical Model (Base Model + CRT [Y/No]), Final Model (Clinical Model + SNPs). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate predictive utility of Final Model in assessing CNS SN risk. Two risk groups were derived using predicted values (high risk: ≥0.1; low risk: <0.1). Results: Median age at primary cancer dx was 3.5y (cases) and 5.0y (controls); time to CNS SNs was 13.2y; 91.5% of cases and 39.5% of controls had received CRT (p<0.001). Clinical Model (area under curve [AUC] = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.8-0.9) performed better than Base Model (AUC = 0.58, 95%CI, 0.5-0.7, p=0.001). Final Model performed best when five SNPs involved in DNA repair (forward stepwise selection: rs1805389 [LIG4], rs15869 [BRCA2], rs8079544 [TP53], rs498872 [PHLDB1], rs1673041 [POLD1]) were included (AUC = 0.86, 95%CI, 0.8-0.9, p = 0.04; reference: Clinical Model). Using high vs. low risk group as risk classifier, the accuracy of the prediction model was 91.7%, with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 57%. Similar observations emerged in analyses stratified by CNS SN type (meningioma [n=46]/ glioma [n=28]) and analyses restricted to CCS with CRT. Conclusions: We have developed a combined clinical and genetic risk prediction model that accurately identifies CCS at high and low risk of CNS SNs. This model, when validated externally, could serve as a useful risk classifier to assess the risk of CNS SNs when CRT is being considered.

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)0.001
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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