Validated algorithms for identifying timing of second event of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma using r<scp>eal‐world</scp> data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding occurrence and timing of second events (recurrence and second primary cancer) is essential for cancer specific survival analysis. However, this information is not readily available in administrative data. METHODS: Alberta Cancer Registry, physician claims, and other administrative data were used. Timing of second event was estimated based on our developed algorithm. For validation, the difference, in days between the algorithm estimated and the chart-reviewed timing of second event. Further, the result of Cox-regression modeling cancer-free survival was compared to chart review data. RESULTS: Majority (74.3%) of the patients had a difference between the chart-reviewed and algorithm-estimated timing of second event falling within the 0-60 days window. Kaplan-Meier curves generated from the estimated data and chart review data were comparable with a 5-year second-event-free survival rate of 75.4% versus 72.5%. CONCLUSION: The algorithm provided an estimated timing of second event similar to that of the chart review.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".