Matching methods in precision oncology: An introduction and illustrative example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are uncommon in precision oncology. We provide an introduction and illustrative example of matching methods for evaluating precision oncology in the absence of RCTs. We focus on British Columbia's Personalized OncoGenomics (POG) program, which applies whole-genome and transcriptome analysis (WGTA) to inform advanced cancer care. METHODS: Our cohort comprises 230 POG patients enrolled between 2014 and 2015 and matched POG-naive controls. We generated our matched cohort using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) and genetic matching prior to exploring survival differences. RESULTS: We find that genetic matching outperformed PSM when balancing covariates. In all cohorts, overall survival did not significantly differ across POG and POG-naive patients (p > 0.05). Stratification by WGTA-informed treatment indicated unmatched survival differences. Patients whose WGTA information led to treatment change were at a reduced hazard of death compared to POG-naive controls in all cohorts, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 0.33 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.81) to 0.41 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.98). CONCLUSION: These results signal that clinical effectiveness of precision oncology approaches will depend on rates of genomics-informed treatment change. Our study will guide future evaluations of precision oncology and support reliable effect estimation when RCT data are unavailable.
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 | 0.067 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".