MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304606617 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29100596

The Predictive Significance of Prognostic Nutritional Index and Serum Albumin/Globulin Ratio on the Overall Survival of Penile Cancer Patients Undergoing Penectomy

2022· article· en· W4304606617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wei‐Jie Song, Ni-Chujie Li, Jun Gao, Zhipeng Xu, Jianye Liu, Zhi Long, Leye He

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineYouden's J statisticConfidence intervalHazard ratioInternal medicineReceiver operating characteristicPenectomyStage (stratigraphy)Penile cancerGastroenterologyProportional hazards modelRetrospective cohort studySurvival analysisSurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To assess the value of using the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and serum albumin/globulin ratio (AGR) in predicting the overall survival (OS) of patients with penile cancer (PC) undergoing penectomy. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis of 123 patients who were admitted to our hospital due to PC from April 2010 to September 2021 and who underwent penectomy were included in the study. The optimal cut-off value of the PNI and AGR was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Kaplan–Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model were used to evaluate the correlation between the PNI, AGR, and OS in patients with PC. Results: A total of 16 of the 123 patients died during the follow-up period, and the median follow-up time was 58.0 months. The best cut-off values of the PNI and AGR were set to 49.03 (95% confidence interval 0.705–0.888, Youden index = 0.517, sensitivity = 57.9%, specificity = 93.7%, p < 0.001) and 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.610–0.860, Youden index = 0.404, sensitivity = 84.1%, specificity = 56.2%, p = 0.003). The Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that the OS of the patients in the high PNI group and the high AGR group was significantly higher than that of the patients in the low PNI group and the low AGR group (p < 0.001). The univariable analysis showed that the aCCI, the clinical N stage, the pathological stage, and the PNI, AGR, SII, and PLR are all predictors of OS in patients with PC (p < 0.05). The multivariable analysis showed that the PNI (risk rate [HR] = 0.091; 95% CI: 0.010–0.853; p = 0.036) and the AGR (risk rate [HR] = 0.171; 95% CI: 0.043–0.680; p = 0.012) are independent prognostic factors for predicting OS in patients with PC undergoing penectomy. Conclusions: Both the PNI score and the serum AGR are independent prognostic factors for predicting OS in patients with PC undergoing penectomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207