Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) comprises a highly heterogeneous group of diseases with varied clinical outcomes. As a result, models to estimate prognosis were developed in an attempt to aid patient counseling, treatment selection, and clinical trial design. Contemporary prognostic models have been mostly generated based on clinical factors because of their ease of use. Recent advances in molecular techniques have allowed unprecedented molecular profiling of RCC and the discovery of genomic and proteotranscriptomic factors that may contribute to disease trajectory. With the advent of multiple systemic therapies in mRCC in recent years, predictive biomarkers have become increasingly relevant in treatment selection. In this review, we discuss the existing staging systems and prognostic models in mRCC. We also highlight various promising molecular biomarkers according to the subtypes of RCC and explore their integration into the traditional prognostic models. In addition, we discuss emerging predictive biomarkers in the era of immuno-oncology. Lastly, we explore future directions with a focus on liquid biopsies and composite biomarkers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".