MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980545575 · doi:10.2196/15363

Evaluation of Patterns of Presentation, Practice, and Outcomes of Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: Protocol for an Observational, International, Multicenter, Cohort Study by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society

2019· article· en· W2980545575 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joyce Baard, Merve Celebi, Jean de la Rosette, Antonio Alcaraz, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Luigi Cormio, Vítor Cavadas, M. Pilar Laguna

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineProtocol (science)CohortRandomized controlled trialClinical trialCohort studyFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Available guidelines on the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) are restricted due to the lack of strong evidence-based recommendations. Adequate, well-powered randomized trials are missing due to the rarity of the disease. To overcome this problem, we need alternative study designs to provide generalizable data. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this registry is to provide a real-world overview on patterns of presentation and management of UTUC. Secondary objectives include comparison of outcomes of different treatments and tumor stages and evaluation of compliance with the current European Association of Urology recommendations for UTUC. METHODS: For this observational, international, multicenter, cohort study, clinical data of consecutive patients suspected of having UTUC, irrespective of type of management, will be prospectively collected up to 5 years after inclusion. Data on the patterns of presentation, diagnostics, and treatment as well as short-, mid-, and long-term oncological and functional outcomes will be analyzed. Possible associations between variables, basal characteristics, and outcomes will be tested by multivariable analyses. The methodology will address potential sources of bias and confounders. RESULTS: The registry was initiated in November 2014 after obtaining institutional review board approval. Data collection started in December 2014. At the time of submission of this manuscript, 2451 patients from 125 centers from 37 countries were included. Inclusion of patients will be closed 5 years after initiation of the registry. Quality checks will be performed centrally with continuous communication and feedback with the centers to ensure accuracy. The first results are expected in the first trimester of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational prospective cohort will generate landmark "real-world" data and hypotheses for further studies. We expect these data to optimize the management of UTUC, provide insights on harms and benefits of treatment, and serve as quality control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02281188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02281188. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15363.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.547
GPT teacher head0.668
Teacher spread0.121 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→