MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200263878 · doi:10.1111/bju.15677

Nomograms including the UBC <sup>®</sup> Rapid test to detect primary bladder cancer based on a multicentre dataset

2021· article· en· W4200263878 on OpenAlexaff
Christina J. Meisl, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, R. Einarsson, Stefan Koch, Steffen Hallmann, Sarah A. Weiss, Tammer Hemdan, Per‐Uno Malmström, Johan Styrke, Amir Sherif, M. Hasan, Renate Pichler, Gennadi Tulchiner, Joan Palou, Ó. Rodríguez Faba, Jörg Hennenlotter, Arnulf Stenzl, René Ritter, Günter Niegisch, Camilla M. Grunewald, Thorsten Schlomm, Frank Friedersdorff, Dimitri Barski, T. Otto, Andreas Gössl, Christian Arndt, Kesavan Esuvaranathan, Nisha R. Kesavan, Zhijiang Zang, Mario W. Kramer, Martin Hennig, Thorsten Ecke

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramReceiver operating characteristicConfidence intervalMedicineBladder cancerLogistic regressionArea under the curveInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To evaluate the clinical utility of the urinary bladder cancer antigen test UBC ® Rapid for the diagnosis of bladder cancer (BC) and to develop and validate nomograms to identify patients at high risk of primary BC. Patients and Methods Data from 1787 patients from 13 participating centres, who were tested between 2012 and 2020, including 763 patients with BC, were analysed. Urine samples were analysed with the UBC ® Rapid test. The nomograms were developed using data from 320 patients and externally validated using data from 274 patients. The diagnostic accuracy of the UBC ® Rapid test was evaluated using receiver‐operating characteristic curve analysis. Brier scores and calibration curves were chosen for the validation. Biopsy‐proven BC was predicted using multivariate logistic regression. Results The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for the UBC ® Rapid test were 46.4%, 75.5% and 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58–0.64) for low‐grade (LG) BC, and 70.5%, 75.5% and 0.73 (95% CI 0.70–0.76) for high‐grade (HG) BC, respectively. Age, UBC ® Rapid test results, smoking status and haematuria were identified as independent predictors of primary BC. After external validation, nomograms based on these predictors resulted in areas under the curve of 0.79 (95% CI 0.72–0.87) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98) for predicting LG‐BC and HG‐BC, respectively, showing excellent calibration associated with a higher net benefit than the UBC ® Rapid test alone for low and medium risk levels in decision curve analysis. The R Shiny app allows the results to be explored interactively and can be accessed at www.blucab‐index.net . Conclusion The UBC ® Rapid test alone has limited clinical utility for predicting the presence of BC. However, its combined use with BC risk factors including age, smoking status and haematuria provides a fast, highly accurate and non‐invasive tool for screening patients for primary LG‐BC and especially primary HG‐BC.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207