Validation of the graded prognostic assessment for gastrointestinal cancers with brain metastases (GI-GPA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate a new prognostic model (GI-GPA) originally derived from a multi-center database (USA, Canada, Japan). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 92 German and Norwegian patients treated with individualized approaches, always including brain radiotherapy. Information about age, extracranial spread, number of brain metastases, performance status and other variables was collected. The GI-GPA score was calculated as described by Sperduto et al. RESULTS: Median survival was 4 months. The corresponding figures for the 4 different prognostic strata were 2.3, 4.4, 9.4 and 12.7 months, respectively (p = 0.0001). Patients whose management included surgical resection had longer median survival than those who were treated with other approaches (median 11.9 versus 3.0 months, p = 0.002). Comparable results were seen for additional systemic therapy (median 8.5 versus 3.5 months, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: These results confirm the validity of the GI-GPA in an independent dataset from a different geographical region, despite the fact that overall survival was shorter in all prognostic strata, compared to Sperduto et al. Potential explanations include differences in molecular tumor characteristics and treatment selection, both brain metastases-directed and extracranially. Long-term survival beyond 5 years is possible in a small minority of patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".