MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949424905 · doi:10.7150/jca.30624

Incidence of metastatic disease and survival among patients with newly diagnosed primary CNS tumors in the United States from 2004-2013

2019· article· en· W2949424905 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Lian, Craig Daniels, Yipeng Han, Qifeng Li, Yang Zhao, Baocheng Wang, Changbin Zhu, Weiwei Mao, Michael D. Taylor, Jie Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
KeywordsMedicineAtypical teratoid rhabdoid tumorInternal medicineOncologyMedulloblastomaHazard ratioLogistic regressionOdds ratioMetastasisIncidence (geometry)Proportional hazards modelGliomaConfidence intervalCancerMultivariate analysisPilocytic astrocytomaPopulationAstrocytomaPathologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Population-based estimates of the incidence and prognosis of metastatic disease at the initial diagnosis of primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors are currently lacking. Methods: A total of 43,455 patients diagnosed with a primary CNS tumor were enrolled to evaluate metastatic rates utilizing the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. We used multivariate logistic regression to analyze the risk factors associated with the presence of metastasis at the first visit of patients with metastatic medulloblastoma (MB), atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor (ATRT), glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), or pilocytic astrocytoma (PA). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific death (CSD) of patients with these four CNS tumors were analyzed using multivariate Cox regression. Results: In patients with primary CNS embryonal tumors, the metastatic rates of patients with MB and ATRT were 14.51% and 19.25%, respectively. The metastatic rate for MB patients aged 0 to 18 years was 16.69%. In the patients with glioma, the metastatic rates of patients with PA and GBM were 1.55% and 1.39%, respectively. On multivariate logistic regression among patients with glioma, GBM (vs PA; OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.37 to 3.30; P=0.001) was associated with greater odds of having metastatic disease at diagnosis. On multivariate logistic regression among patients with GBM, MB, or ATRT, MB (vs GBM; OR, 4.66; 95% CI, 2.81 to 7.72; P<0.001) and ATRT (vs GBM; OR, 5.65; 95% CI, 3.27 to 9.75; P<0.001) were associated with greater odds of having metastatic disease at diagnosis. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model for CSD among patients with metastatic GBM or MB at diagnosis, gross total resection/total lobectomy (vs partial resection/partial lobectomy) was not related to a decreased or an increased risk of CSD. In patients with metastatic ATRT, compared to no surgery, gross total resection/total lobectomy or partial resection/partial lobectomy was not associated with a decreased risk of CSD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of CancerSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207