MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303981463 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.1019057

An external validation of the nocera nomogram: Predicting non-organ confined stage of ≥pT3 in cT1 clear cell renal cell carcinoma

2022· article· en· W4303981463 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Wenzel, Benedikt Hoeh, Jessica Rührup, Hanna Gambetta, Luigi Nocera, Christoph Würnschimmel, Zhe Tian, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Alberto Briganti, Felix K.‐H. Chun, Frederik C. Roos, Andreas Becker, Marieke J. Krimphove

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramMedicineRenal cell carcinomaClear cell renal cell carcinomaStage (stratigraphy)Renal sinusReceiver operating characteristicUrologyCohortRenal massOncologyRadiologyInternal medicineNephrectomyKidneyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Only one previously published study by Nocera et al. addressed the risk of upstaging to ≥pT3 in cT1 clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) by using characteristics of the R.E.N.A.L and PADUA score (age, tumor size, rim location, exophytic rate, polar involvement) developing an accurate nomogram. However, this nomogram has never been externally validated yet. Material and methods: The study cohort consisted of 288 patients with cT1a-b ccRCC, diagnosed between 2008-2021 at the University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany. Analyses addressed clinical, tumor and radiographic characteristics. The external validation of the nomogram relied on accuracy calculations derived from the area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic analysis. Results: . 13.0%), and medial rim location significantly differed between the pT1-2 and ≥pT3 group (all p ≤ 0.01). In subgroup analyses of small renal mass ccRCC patients (<4cm, cT1a), only 3.8% (n=6) patients had ≥pT3 pathology. Upstaged patients were significantly older and more frequently had endophytic tumor than pT1-2 counterparts (p<0.05). The external validation of the Nocera nomogram showed a good accuracy of 76.6%. Using the suggested cut-off of 21%, 26.5% of patients exhibited ≥pT3 ccRCC. Conversely, within patients below cut-off, 5.9% patients exhibited ≥pT3 ccRCC. Conclusion: We reported the first external validation of the nomogram addressing the risk of ≥pT3 in cT1 ccRCC patients, demonstrating a good accuracy, with a low false-negative rate. Therefore, the nomogram can accurately be used for patients' counselling and treatment 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207