Determining Overall Survival and Risk Factors in Esophageal Cancer Using Censored Quantile Regression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Esophageal cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. The global increasing rate of this type of cancer requires more attention. The purpose of this study was to determine the overall survival probability of esophageal cancer after diagnosis and to assess the potential risk factors in a population of Iranian patients. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on 127 cases with esophageal cancer in the Azarbaijan province, East of Iran. Participants in the study were diagnosed during 2009-2010 and were followed up for 5 years. The event was considered death due to esophageal cancer and those who survived until the end of the study were assumed as right censored. Censored quntile regression was fitted to find the overall survival of the patients using adjusted effects of variables and was compared with Cox regression model. Results: Patients’ mean and median survival time were 16.99 and 10.06 months respectively and 89% off cases died by the end of the study. The 1, 3, 6, 12 and 36-month survival probabilities were 0.95, 0.76, 0.60, 0.43, and 0.18. The median survival time for females and males without surgery were 21.79 and 14.76 month respectively. The accuracy of predictions were 0.99 and 0.74 for the censored quantile regression and Cox, respectively. Conclusion: We concluded that being male, not having surgery, longer wait time between having symptoms and being diagnosed, low socioeconomic status and old age to be significant risk factors in reducing the probability of survival from esophageal cancer.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it