MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095503031 · doi:10.1200/cci.20.00065

Development of a Model for Predicting Early Discontinuation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Stage III Colon Cancer

2020· review· en· W3095503031 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Clinical Cancer Informatics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)DiscontinuationAdjuvant chemotherapyColorectal cancerOncologyInternal medicineMedicineChemotherapyAdjuvantCancerBiologyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE To develop a tool that can be used to predict early discontinuation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Through record linkage of Alberta administrative and tumor registry databases, we identified a cohort of individuals age ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with stage III colon cancer and who received adjuvant chemotherapy in Alberta between 2004 and 2015. Early discontinuation was defined as receipt of < 5 months of a planned 6-month course of chemotherapy. By a systematic review of the literature and a survey of medical oncologists, the following candidate variables were identified: age (years), number of comorbidities (0, 1, ≥ 2), cancer stage (IIIC v IIIA-B), type of chemotherapy (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin; capecitabine and oxaliplatin; or monotherapy), time from surgery to chemotherapy initiation (weeks), type of treatment facility (academic or community), and distance from home to treatment center (kilometers). Models developed using penalized logistic regression and the random forest algorithm were compared. Model performance was assessed using the C-statistic, Brier score, and a calibration plot. Internal validation was performed using the bootstrap method. RESULTS From an initial 3,115 patients identified, 1,378 were deemed eligible for inclusion. Of these patients, 474 patients (34.4%) failed to complete at least 5 months of chemotherapy. Although well calibrated, the penalized logistic regression model had poor discrimination (optimism-adjusted C-statistic, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.67). In contrast, the random forest model achieved adequate discrimination (optimism-adjusted C-statistic, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.82). Although the degree of calibration of the random forest was acceptable, it was slightly worse than that of the penalized logistic regression model. CONCLUSION Internal validation of our random forest model suggests that it may have clinical utility. Additional research regarding its external validation and clinical impact is needed.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.254 · 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