Validation of the Graded Prognostic Assessment for Melanoma Using Molecular Markers (Melanoma-molGPA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested to replace the diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (DS-GPA, based on performance status and number of brain metastases) for patients with primary malignant melanoma with the new Melanoma-molGPA. The latter is a more complex assessment, which also includes BRAF mutation status, age and extracranial metastases. To test the performance of the Melanoma-molGPA, we performed a validation study of this new survival prediction tool. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients treated at two different academic institutions was performed. The four-tiered Melanoma-molGPA was calculated as suggested in the original study. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 5.4 months (95% confidence interval: 3.1 - 7.7 months). Median survival in the four prognostic classes was 2.1, 7.8, 11.8, and 18.0 months, respectively. The 1-year survival rates were 3%, 25%, 43%, and 80%, respectively. The difference between the Kaplan-Meier curves was significant (P = 0.0001, log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: The present survival outcomes support the use of the Melanoma-molGPA. However, survival was better in each of the four groups in the original study. Possible reasons include lead-time bias and different treatment policies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".