Can We Predict a Higher Risk of Urothelial Bladder Cancer With a Simple Blood Test?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need to develop tools prioritizing high risk patients for urgent evaluation. Our objective was to determine whether Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), an inflammation-based score, can predict higher grade and stage urothelial bladder cancer in patients with gross hematuria who need urgent evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed a database of 129 consecutive patients presenting with gross hematuria. GPS was calculated using pretreatment C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin levels. Patients with bacteriuria or other known malignancies were excluded. The relationship between GPS and final diagnosis was analyzed with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were included in the study and 24 patients were identified without any pathology and 77 with a bladder tumor. Pathology demonstrated 21 with muscle invasive, 18 with high grade non-muscle invasive, and 38 with low grade superficial bladder cancer. Twenty-six of 39 (67%) patients with high grade tumors had a GPS of 1 or 2 compared to only 8 out of 62 (13%) patients with either low grade or negative findings (p<0.0001). Ten of 21 (48%) patients with muscle invasive disease had a GPS of 2 compared to 1 out of 18 (6%) with high grade non muscle invasive tumors (p=0.04). On multivariate analysis, GPS was a strong independent predictor of high grade and stage bladder cancer. CONCLUSION: GPS may serve as a highly accessible predictor of high grade, high stage, and large urothelial bladder tumors at the time of initial evaluation and can help identify patients who need urgent evaluation.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".