MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966862946 · doi:10.1002/pros.23882

A four‐gene transcript score to predict metastatic‐lethal progression in men treated for localized prostate cancer: Development and validation studies

2019· article· en· W2966862946 on OpenAlexaff
Anqi Cheng, Shanshan Zhao, Liesel M. FitzGerald, Jonathan L. Wright, Suzanne Kolb, R. Jeffrey Karnes, Robert B. Jenkins, Elai Davicioni, Elaine A. Ostrander, Ziding Feng, Jian‐Bing Fan, James Y. Dai, Janet L. Stanford

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicOncologyProstate cancerInternal medicineConfidence intervalMedicineArea under the curveCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Molecular studies have tried to address the unmet need for prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer (PCa). Some gene expression tests improve upon clinical factors for prediction of outcomes, but additional tools for accurate prediction of tumor aggressiveness are needed. Methods Based on a previously published panel of 23 gene transcripts that distinguished patients with metastatic progression, we constructed a prediction model using independent training and testing datasets. Using the validated messenger RNAs and Gleason score (GS), we performed model selection in the training set to define a final locked model to classify patients who developed metastatic‐lethal events from those who remained recurrence‐free. In an independent testing dataset, we compared our locked model to established clinical prognostic factors and utilized Kaplan‐Meier curves and receiver operating characteristic analyses to evaluate the model's performance. Results Thirteen of 23 previously identified gene transcripts that stratified patients with aggressive PCa were validated in the training dataset. These biomarkers plus GS were used to develop a four‐gene ( CST2, FBLN1, TNFRSF19 , and ZNF704 ) transcript (4GT) score that was significantly higher in patients who progressed to metastatic‐lethal events compared to those without recurrence in the testing dataset ( P = 5.7 × 10 −11 ). The 4GT score provided higher prediction accuracy (area under the ROC curve [AUC] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69‐0.83; partial area under the ROC curve [pAUC] = 0.008) than GS alone (AUC = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.56‐0.70; pAUC = 0.002), and it improved risk stratification in subgroups defined by a combination of clinicopathological features (ie, Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment‐Surgery). Conclusion Our validated 4GT score has prognostic value for metastatic‐lethal progression in men treated for localized PCa and warrants further evaluation for its clinical utility.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ProstateSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207