MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957547919 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.190147

Risk of Cancer in 767 Patients with Giant Cell Arteritis in Western Norway: A Retrospective Cohort with Matched Controls

2019· article· en· W2957547919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lene Kristin Brekke, Bjørg‐Tilde Svanes Fevang, Andreas P. Diamantopoulos, Jörg Aßmus, E. Esperø, Clara Gram Gjesdal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorsk RevmatikerforbundHaukeland Universitetssjukehus
KeywordsGiant cell arteritisRetrospective cohort studyMedicineCohortCancerOncologyInternal medicineVasculitisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of cancer in a large Norwegian cohort of patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA). METHODS: This is a hospital-based, retrospective, observational cohort study including patients diagnosed with GCA in the Bergen Health Area during 1972-2012. Patients were identified through computerized hospital records using the International Classification of Diseases coding system. Medical records were reviewed. Each patient was randomly assigned population controls matched on age, sex, and geography from the Central Population Registry of Norway. Data on the occurrence of cancer were obtained from the Cancer Registry of Norway. The cumulative risk of malignancy was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and potential differences were analyzed using the Gehan-Breslow and log-rank tests. RESULTS: We identified 881 cases with a clinical diagnosis of GCA, of which 792 fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1990 classification criteria and 528 were biopsy-verified. Cases with no registered cancer prior to GCA diagnosis were included in a time-to-event analysis, with first cancer as the event (n = 767 with clinical GCA diagnosis, 686 fulfilling ACR criteria for GCA, 463 biopsy-verified). These cases were matched with previously cancer-free population controls (n = 1437, 1284, 895, respectively). We found no significant difference in the risk of malignancy after time of diagnosis/matching for GCA patients compared to population controls (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this study of a large and well-characterized cohort of patients with GCA, there was no difference in the risk of malignancy in patients with GCA compared to matched population controls.

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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207