MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A prognostic model for predicting overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with abiraterone acetate (AA) after docetaxel.

2013· article· en· W2962751967 on OpenAlexaff
Kim N., Thian Kheoh, Charles J. Ryan, Arturo Molina, Joaquim Bellmunt, Nicholas J. Vogelzang, Dana E. Rathkopf, Karim Fizazi, Philip W. Kantoff, Jinhui Li, Johann S. de Bono, Howard I. Scher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbiraterone acetateDocetaxelInternal medicineProportional hazards modelProstate cancerHazard ratioPrednisoneOncologyPlaceboChemotherapyUnivariate analysisGastroenterologyCancerAndrogen deprivation therapyMultivariate analysisConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5013 Background: COU-AA-301 was a multinational, randomized, controlled, phase III trial comparing AA + prednisone (P) (n = 797) versus placebo + P (n = 398) in mCRPC pts post-docetaxel. Using data from that trial, we developed a prognostic model for predicting OS in pts treated with AA post-chemotherapy, with a focus on readily assessable clinical parameters. Methods: The analyses used data from pts treated with AA in the COU-AA-301 trial for whom relevant baseline data were available (n = 729). Baseline variables were assessed for association with OS through a univariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. High/low values for accepted normal ranges were used for laboratory parameters. The Cox proportional hazards regression was used with a stepwise procedure to identify independent prognostic factors for OS. The model was subject to sensitivity analyses and the C-index was utilized as a measure of model accuracy. Results: The following risk factors were associated with a poor prognosis: ECOG performance status (only pts with scores of ≤ 2 were eligible for this trial) of 2 (HR = 2.19, p < 0.0001), presence of liver metastases (HR = 2.00, p < 0.0001), time from start of initial LHRH agonist therapy to start of AA treatment ≤ 36 months (HR = 1.30, p = 0.0078), low albumin (HR = 1.54, p < 0.0001), high ALP (HR = 1.38, p = 0.0016), and high LDH (HR = 2.31, p < 0.0001). Patients were categorized into 3 risk groups (good prognosis, n = 369; intermediate prognosis, n = 321; poor prognosis, n = 107) based on total number of risk factors and median OS calculated for each group (table). The C-index was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.80). Conclusions: This prognostic model uses readily available clinical parameters to conveniently assess risk for mCRPC pts previously treated with docetaxel and initiating treatment with AA + P. If validated, the model will be useful in clinical practice and clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT00638690. [Table: see text]

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207