External Validation of the Graded Prognostic Assessment in Patients with Brain Metastases from Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, graded prognostic assessment (GPA) for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients with brain metastases has been developed. This includes age, performance status, number of brain metastases and presence of extracranial metastases. The aim of the present study was to validate this four-tiered prognostic score in a European cohort of patients. METHODS: The retrospective validation study included 180 patients from two centers in Germany and Norway. RESULTS: < 0.001). However, no significant survival difference was observed between patients in the two strata with better survival (3.5-4 and 2.5-3 points, respectively). Long-term survival in the poor prognosis group (0-1 points) was better than expected. CONCLUSION: This study supports the prognostic impact of all four parameters contributing to the GPA. The original way of grouping the parameters and breaking the final strata did not give optimal results in this cohort. Therefore, additional validation databases from different countries should be created and evaluated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".