MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validation of a genomic classifier to predict adverse pathology in men diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer.

2018· article· en· W2790262846 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hyung Lae Kim, Ping Li, Huei–Chung Huang, Samineh Deheshi, Beatrice S. Knudsen, Hatem Abou–Ouf, Lucia L.C. Lam, Jennifer Margrave, Marguerite du Plessis, Elai Davicioni, Jeffrey J. Tosoian, Ashley E. Ross, John W. Davis, M. Eric Hyndman, Eric A. Klein, Tarek A. Bismar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerBiochemical recurrenceInternal medicineLogistic regressionProstateGynecologyCohortOncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

71 Background: The Decipher 22-feature genomic classifier (GC) has been validated to predict metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality in needle biopsy (Bx) tissue of men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. We validate GC in diagnostic Bx specimens for the prediction of high-grade/stage (HGS) disease at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with low and favorable-intermediate (fav-int) NCCN risk group disease. Methods: We identified 176 men diagnosed with low or fav-int NCCN risk group disease who had available Bx GC scores and pathological information after RP from Cedars-Sinai, University of Calgary, Cleveland Clinic, MD Anderson, and Johns Hopkins. The GC score was calculated based on a locked random forest model. Scores range from 0-1 with cut points for GC low, intermediate and high risk groups as <0.45, 0.45-0.6, and >0.6, respectively. The primary endpoint was HGS (Gleason group 3-5 or pT3b or lymph node invasion (LNI)). Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression models were used to evaluate GC and CAPRA. Results: Median age of the cohort was 62 years, 87% and 13% had Bx grade group (GG) 1 or 2 disease. 76% and 24% were NCCN low and fav-int risk, respectively. CAPRA classified 70% as low (0-2) and 30% as average risk (3-5). GC classified 80% low, 16% intermediate and 4% high genomic risk. After RP, 41% had RP GG 1, 46% GG 2 and 13% had GG 3-5 disease. pT3b or positive lymph nodes were observed in 7 men (4%), overall 27 (15%) of men had HGS at RP. In the UVA and MVA, GC was the only significant predictor of HGS with odds ratio (OR) of 1.38 and 1.34 per 10% unit increase, before and after adjusting for CAPRA (p=0.011, 0.027). A low risk score (GC<0.45) had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 92% to identify men who do not have HGS at RP. In exploratory analysis, a very low risk cut-point (GC<0.2) was found which had a sensitivity of 96% and an NPV of 99%. 26% of men had GC<0.2. Conclusions: We validated GC in a multi-institutional study to predict HGS at RP among men with NCCN low and fav-int risk disease with high sensitivity and NPV. Future studies will aim to validate the very low risk genomic cut-point to guide decision-making and follow-up biopsy protocols for men considering or in active surveillance.

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)0.006
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.385 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→