MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Genomic validation of three-tiered sub-classification of high-risk prostate cancer.

2019· article· en· W2921914635 on OpenAlexaff
Vinayak Muralidhar, Jingbin Zhang, Daniel E. Spratt, Felix Y. Feng, Elai Davicioni, Kasra Yousefi, Natalie Wang, Voleak Choeurng, Paul L. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineProstateCancerOncologyProstate-specific antigenInternal medicineDECIPHERRisk assessmentBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

17 Background: Recent data and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines suggest that high-risk prostate cancer (cT3-4, Gleason score ≥ 8, or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] > 20 ng/mL) is a heterogenous group in terms of long-term patient outcomes. We sought to determine whether sub-classification of high-risk prostate cancer based on clinical factors correlates with genomic markers of risk. Methods: We identified 3,220 patients with NCCN unfavorable intermediate-risk (n=2,000) or high-risk (n=1,220) prostate cancer. We defined the following sub-classification of high-risk prostate cancer based on previously published data: favorable high-risk (cT1c, Gleason 6, and PSA > 20 ng/mL or cT1c, Gleason 4+4=8, PSA < 10 ng/mL); very high-risk (cT3b-T4 or primary Gleason pattern 5); and standard high-risk (all others with cT3a, Gleason score ≥ 8, or PSA > 20 ng/mL). We used a set of 37 previously published genomic classifiers, including the 22-gene Decipher assay, to determine whether high-risk genomic features correlated with the clinical sub-classification of high-risk prostate cancer. Results: Among those with favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, and very high-risk prostate cancer, 50.4%, 64.2%, 81.6% had a high-risk Decipher score, respectively (p < 0.001). Among 36 other genomic signatures, 33 had a similar increasing trend across the three sub-classes of high-risk (p < 0.05 after correction for multiple hypothesis testing). Patients in the three sub-classes of high-risk disease were positive for a median number of 5, 7, and 14 high-risk signatures. Under a novel clinical-genomic risk group classification (Spratt et al., 2017), 27.5%, 19.7%, and 7.0% of patients with favorable, standard, or very high-risk disease would be re-classified as intermediate-risk, respectively. In comparison, among those with unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 38.2% had a high-risk Decipher score and would be re-classified as clinical-genomic high-risk. Conclusions: Genomic markers of risk correlate with the clinical sub-classification of high-risk prostate cancer into favorable high-risk, standard high-risk, and very high-risk disease, validating the prognostic utility of this stratification.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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