MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostication in non-small cell lung cancer.

2012· article· en· W2793583610 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bruno Gagnon, Ioannis Gioulbasanis, Victor Cohen, Carmela Pepe, David Small, Lin Yang, Eleni Isidora Perdikouri, Goulnar Kasymjanova, David L. Morris, Neil Macdonald, Jason Agulnik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePerformance statusCohortProportional hazards modelHazard ratioLung cancerOncologyStage (stratigraphy)CancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18098 Background: For modern evidence-based medicine, a well defined risk scoring system on survival has important clinical implications for identifying patients with a poor prognosis. The objective of this study was to develop a Montreal Prognostic Score (MPS) based on risk scores of the baseline clinical markers. Methods: A training Cohort (TC) and confirmatory cohort (CC) of patients with non small-cell lung cancer were used to develop a Montreal Prognostic Score (MPS) and were assembled of patients from 3 different oncology centres: Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Quebec, Canada; the University General Hospital of Heraklion Crete, Greece; and at the University General Hospital of Larissa, Greece. Stage, performance status, smoking status, CRP, Albumin, LDH and WBC from TC were entered in a Cox’s model on survival. Independent prognostic factors (p ≤ 0.1) were assigned a relative risk score by dividing their Proportional Hazard by the lowest one rounding to the closest integer. A 3 risk groups’ regression based total score (MPS) was finally developed by regrouping subgroups of patients with similar median survival. The MPS was tested on the CC. C-statistics was used to test the accuracy of the MPS. Results: 638 pts were included in the study: 314 in the TC and 324 in the CC. Majority of patients were stage 4 adenocarcinomas with good performance status treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Stage, performance status, CRP, Albumin, LDH and WBC retained independent prognostic value and were used to create the MPS. The MPS predicted 3 well defined risk groups of patients with the following median survival and (95% CI) in months: high risk group (87 patients), 5.0 (4.2—7.0); intermediary risk group (98 patients), 9.6 (8.4—11.9); and low risk group (84 patients) 15.2 (12.4—25.1). When the MPS is applied to CC, the results were replicated for each risk group. Overall the TC had a C-stats of 0.673 (95% CI: 0.668, 0.679) while the CC of 0.702 (95% CI: 0.696, 0.708). Conclusions: We have developed a Montreal Prognostic Score based on stage, performance status and the baseline value of CRP, Albumin, LDH, WBC. This MPS has a high capacity of discriminating survival and might have wide implications in clinical practice and research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207