MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794460351 · doi:10.1186/s12885-018-4242-8

Characteristics and outcome of the COEUR Canadian validation cohort for ovarian cancer biomarkers

2018· article· en· W2794460351 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cécile Le Page, Kurosh Rahimi, Martin Köbel, Patricia N. Tonin, Liliane Meunier, Lise Portelance, Monique Bernard, Brad H. Nelson, Marcus Q. Bernardini, John M.S. Bartlett, Dimcho Bachvarov, Walter H. Gotlieb, C. Blake Gilks, Jessica N. McAlpine, Mark W. Nachtigal, Alain Piché, Peter H. Watson, Barbara C. Vanderhyden, David G. Huntsman, Diane Provencher, Anne‐Marie Mes‐Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaJewish General HospitalOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of TorontoCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersTerry Fox Research Institute
KeywordsSurgical oncologyMedicineOvarian cancerCohortOncologyOutcome (game theory)Internal medicineGynecologyCohort studyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ovarian carcinoma is the most lethal gynecological malignancy due to early dissemination and acquired resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy. Reliable markers that are independent and complementary to clinical parameters are needed to improve the management of patients with this disease. The Canadian Ovarian Experimental Unified Resource (COEUR) provides researchers with biological material and associated clinical data to conduct biomarker validation studies. Using standards defined by the Canadian Tissue Repository Network (CTRNet), we have previously demonstrated the quality of the biological material from this resource. Here we describe the clinical characteristics of the COEUR cohort. METHODS: With support from 12 Canadian ovarian cancer biobanks in Canada, we created a central retrospective cohort comprised of more than 2000 patient tissue samples with associated clinical data, including 1246 high-grade serous, 102 low-grade serous, 295 endometrioid, 259 clear cell and 89 mucinous carcinoma histotypes. A two-step reclassification process was applied to assure contemporary histological classification (histotyping). For each histotypes individually, we evaluated the association between the known clinico-pathological parameters (stage, cytoreduction, chemotherapy treatment, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation) and patient outcome by using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. RESULTS: The median follow-up time of the cohort was 45 months and the 5-year survival rate for patients with high-grade serous carcinomas was 34%, in contrast to endometrioid carcinomas with 80% at 5 years. Survival profiles differed by histotype when stratified by stage or cytoreduction. Women with mucinous or clear cell carcinomas at advanced stage or with non-optimally debulked disease had the worst outcomes. In high-grade serous carcinoma, we observed significant association with longer survival in women harboring BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation as compared to patients without detectable mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the expected survival rates, as compared with current literature, in each histotype suggesting that the cohort is an unbiased representation of the five major histotypes. COEUR, a one stop comprehensive biorepository, has collected mature outcome data and relevant clinical data in a comprehensive manner allowing stratified analysis.

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)0.005
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 score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations135
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207