MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Nomograms to predict serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients (pts) enrolled in phase II clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents (MTAs)

2007· article· en· W2966390396 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory R. Pond, Lillian L. Siu, Malcolm J. Moore, Amit M. Oza, Hal W. Hirte, Eric Winquist, Glenwood Goss, G. R. Hudes, Pamela Degendorfer, Carol Townsley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectNomogramInternal medicineOdds ratioClinical trialConfidence intervalStatistical significanceBootstrapping (finance)SurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6601 Background: The likelihood of experiencing a SAE in clinical trials with a MTA is of interest for clinicians discussing treatment options. Adverse event data from clinical trials in the Princess Margaret Hospital Phase II Consortium [PMH2C] database were analyzed to address this question. Methods: All pts in the PMH2C database treated at the phase II dose level with either a MTA alone or in combination regimens since 2001 were included. Generalised estimating equations were used to construct optimal regression models predicting the increased/decreased odds of a SAE of all causalities (defined as a grade 3+ non-hematologic adverse event, or a grade 4+ hematologic adverse event) during the first cycle of treatment relative to a ‘reference’ pt. Nomograms were constructed to ease interpretation and internal validation explored using bootstrapping on trials larger than 35 pts. Results: 576 pts (median age=60, 55% male, ECOG PS 0:1:2=259:284:35) were accrued to 42 studies. In order of statistical significance, higher ECOG PS, increased LDH, decreased albumin, increased Charlson score, increased number of target lesions, not having prior radiotherapy and decreased age were predictive of increased odds of cycle 1 SAE. As an example, a 56-year old patient with ECOG 2, Charlson score=0, 5 target lesions, LDH=1.70x upper limit of normal [ULN], albumin=0.84xULN and no prior radiation would have ∼3 times increased odds of a SAE in cycle 1, compared to a 63-year old with ECOG 1, Charlson score=0, 1 target lesion, LDH=0.76xULN, albumin=0.68xULN and no prior radiation. Internal validation of the 4 largest studies indicated moderate-good accuracy (estimated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.57–0.86). Conclusions: A nomogram was produced allowing estimation of the increased odds of a SAE during cycle 1 of therapy in a phase II trial setting. Actual risk can then be further estimated by incorporating clinical judgment of risks for an average pt when given a particular MTA. This nomogram can potentially improve patient knowledge, risk estimates and the decision-making process. External validation of the model is still necessary to adequately assess model reliability. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.441 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→