MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Presenting international prognostic scoring system affects time to treatment: A retrospective single center review.

2020· article· en· W3032035362 on OpenAlexaff
Sierra Sutcliffe, Indryas Woldie, Caroline Hamm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWindsor Regional HospitalUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineSingle CenterChemotherapyStage (stratigraphy)International Prognostic IndexProportional hazards modelCancerLymphomaDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20058 Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which requires prompt initiation of chemotherapy to cure, as any delays can result in worse outcomes. A recent study in Japan found that patients with an IPI score ≥3 had a worse prognosis if their diagnosis was delayed, whereas with an IPI score < 3, there was no effect. Methods: This study investigated how long Windsor patients wait to receive chemotherapy after diagnosis, and how this affects relapse status. A retrospective chart review was conducted, looking at all patients diagnosed with DLBCL who underwent treatment at the Windsor Regional Cancer Center from 2007 to 2018 (N = 317). Each chart was reviewed for variables relating to treatment and outcomes. Results: Overall survival within the studied time period was 71% with the median survival time of 11.99 years. The overall relapse rate was 19.24% with a mean relapse-free interval of 4.87 years. A longer time to initial treatment resulted in a decreased risk of relapse (p = 0.038); however, these patients tended to have a lower stage (p = 0.002), no family history of cancer (p < 0.001), and lower IPI scores (p = 0.004). When broken down by IPI score, the mean times to treatment after diagnosis were: IPI 0 = 40 days; IPI 1 = 35 days; IPI 2 = 38 days; IPI 3 = 29 days; IPI 4 = 22 days; IPI 5 = 29 days. Conclusions: These results show that while DLBCL patients with worse prognostic measures are prioritized to receive treatment quicker, there is a large discrepancy in time to treatment between IPI scores. There was an 11-day delay between early and late IPI scores, likely driven by patient symptoms, rather than evidence of safety. The natural history of DLBCL is known to be aggressive, but more granular information is necessary to determine appropriate wait times for presenting IPI score. Further research should focus on identifying delays in the process, and if it can be streamlined to improve wait times for all patients, regardless of IPI score.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→