MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development and Validation of a Laboratory Risk Score (LabScore) to Predict Outcomes after Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

2020· article· en· W3004330371 on OpenAlexaff
Diamantis I. Tsilimigras, Rittal Mehta, Luca Aldrighetti, George A. Poultsides, Shishir K. Maithel, Guillaume Martel, Feng Shen, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Itaru Endo, Timothy M. Pawlik, Anghela Z. Paredes, Dimitrios Moris, Kota Sahara, Fabio Bagante, Alfredo Guglielmi, Matthew J. Weiss, Todd W. Bauer, Sorin Alexandrescu, Hugo P. Marques, Carlo Pulitanò, Olivier Soubrane, Jordan M. Cloyd, Aslam Ejaz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineGastroenterologyHepatectomyIntrahepatic CholangiocarcinomaNeutrophil to lymphocyte ratioConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelLymphocyteSurgeryResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Estimating prognosis in the preoperative setting is challenging, as most survival risk scores rely exclusively on postoperative factors. We sought to develop a composite score that incorporated preoperative liver, tumor, nutritional, and inflammatory markers to predict long-term outcomes after resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy for ICC between 2000 and 2017 were identified using an international multi-institutional database. Clinicopathologic factors were assessed using bivariate and multivariable analysis and a prognostic model to estimate overall survival (OS) based only on preoperative laboratory values (LabScore) was developed and validated. RESULTS: Among 660 patients, median OS was 43.2 months and 5-year OS rate was 42.4%. On multivariable analysis, laboratory values associated with OS included carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.27), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.13), platelet count (HR 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.01), and albumin (HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92). A weighted LabScore was constructed based on the formula: (8.2 + 1.45 × natural logarithm of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 + 0.84 × neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio + 0.03 × platelets - 2.83 × albumin). Patients with a LabScore of 0 to 9 (n = 223), 10 to 19 (n = 353) and ≥20 (n = 88) had incrementally worse 5-year OS rates of 54.9%, 38.2% and 21.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The model demonstrated good performance in both the test (c-index 0.70) and validation cohorts (c-index 0.67), as well as outperformed individual laboratory markers, the prognostic nutritional index (c-index 0.58), and American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (c-index 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative LabScore was able to predict long-term outcomes of patients after resection for ICC better than American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. The LabScore can be used to preoperatively identify patients who will benefit the most from upfront operation or alternative treatment options, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy before resection.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207