Urachal carcinoma: A novel staging system utilizing the National Cancer Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urachal carcinoma (UrC) is a rare, aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis that is frequently diagnosed in advanced stages. Due to its rarity, the current staging systems, namely Sheldon, Mayo, and Ontario were established based on relatively small patient cohorts, necessitating further validation. We used a large patient population from the National Cancer Database to model a novel staging system based on the Tumor (T), Node(N), and Metastasis (M) (TNM) staging system and compared it to established staging systems. METHODS: We identified patients diagnosed with UrC between the years of 2004-2016. To determine median overall survival (OS), a Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve was generated using the Sheldon, Mayo, Ontario, and TNM staging system. A cox proportional-hazards regression model was developed to highlight predictors of overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 626 patients were included in the analysis. The OS for the entire cohort was 58.2 months (50.1-67.8) with survival rates at 12, 24, and 60 months of 83%, 70%, and 49%, respectively (p < 0.0001). As compared to the Sheldon, Mayo, and Ontario staging system, our TNM staging system had a more balanced sample and survival distribution per stage and no overlap among stages on KM survival curves. The Mayo, Ontario, and TNM staging systems were more accurate in terms of stage-survival correlation than the Sheldon staging system (p < 0.05 for all stages). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed novel TNM staging system for UrC has a more balanced sample distribution and a more accurate stage-survival correlation than the traditional Mayo, Sheldon, and Ontario staging systems. It is clinically applicable and enables better risk stratification, prognosis, and therapeutic decision-making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".