Serology-Based Model for Personalized Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to establish a prognosis-prediction model based on serological indicators in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Patients initially diagnosed as ovarian cancer and surgically treated in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from 2014 to 2018 were consecutively enrolled. Serological indicators preoperatively were collected. A risk model score (RMS) was constructed based on the levels of serological indicators determined by receiver operating characteristic curves. We correlated this RMS with EOC patients’ overall survival (OS). Finally, 635 patients were identified. Pearson’s χ2 results showed that RMS was significantly related to clinical parameters. Kaplan−Meier analysis demonstrated that an RMS less than 3 correlated with a longer OS (p < 0.0001). Specifically, significant differences were perceived in the survival curves of different subgroups. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that age (p = 0.015), FIGO stage (p = 0.006), ascites (p = 0.015) and RMS (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for OS. Moreover, RMS combined with age, FIGO and ascites could better evaluate for patients’ prognosis in DCA analyses. Our novel RMS-guided classification preoperatively identified the prognostic subgroups of patients with EOC and showed higher accuracy than the conventional method, meaning that it could be a useful and economical tool for tailored monitoring and/or therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".