MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217762824 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab196.450

INNV-40. REAL WORLD INTEGRATION OF THE NEUROLOGIC ASSESSMENT IN NEURO-ONCOLOGY (NANO) SCALE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE IN PATIENTS WITH IDH-WT GBM

2021· article· en· W3217762824 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Jane Lim-Fat, Marie Allen, Timothy R. Smith, Gilbert Youssef, Brian M. Andersen, Oluwatosin Akintola, Tamar Berger, Joshua Budhu, Annie L. Hsieh, Elisa Aquilanti, Tracy Batchelor, Rameen Beroukhim, Ugonma Chukwueke, L. Nicolas Gonzalez Castro, Eudocia Q. Lee, J Ricardo McFaline-Figueroa, Lisa Doherty, Jennifer Stefanik, Christina Taubert, Alexandra Torres, Patrick Y. Wen, David A. Reardon, Lakshmi Nayak

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineClinical trialOncologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND The neurologic assessment in neuro-oncology (NANO) scale was developed as a standardized metric to objectively measure neurologic function in patients with brain tumors and complement radiographic assessment in defining overall outcome. The scale has been incorporated in clinical trials. Early data is suggestive of feasibility and that NANO contributes to overall outcome assessment. However, real-world use of the NANO scale to drive clinical-decision making and the predictive value of the NANO scale to determine overall survival remains unclear in IDH-wt GBM. METHODS We report on an ongoing study using the NANO scale to evaluate neurologic function in patients with IDH-wt GBM, seen at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). Patient demographics, tumor histology and molecular status, treatment history and progression dates are being captured. NANO score, as collected by a built-in scale in our institutional electronic medical record (EMR), functional status (Karnofsky performance status) and corticosteroid dose are collected at prespecified time points (prior to start of therapy, and during each subsequent MRI visit). Changes in the NANO score will be correlated to overall survival. Statistical analyses including descriptive data analysis and generalized linear models will be performed using R (version 3.4.3). RESULTS Since June 2020, 50 patients have been enrolled in this study, including 42 (84%) with ≥2 follow up visits. Study accrual was initially impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but adaptation to a virtual platform for NANO allowed for improved recruitment and follow up of patients. Study results will be available for discussion at the 2021 SNO conference. CONCLUSIONS Evaluation of neurologic function by NANO is feasible in a virtual framework in a prospective study in patients with GBM, aided by integration of the scale in our institutional EMR. NANO is able to objectively track neurologic function throughout disease course in IDH-wt GBM.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.348 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207