MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307947102 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29110643

Nomogram for Predicting Distant Metastasis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A SEER-Based Population Study

2022· article· en· W4307947102 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weibo Li, Wei Wang, Lichao Yao, Zhigang Tang, Lulu Zhai

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNomogramMedicineReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionPancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaOncologyInternal medicineArea under the curveMetastasisPancreatic cancerStatisticsCancerMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for distant metastasis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and develop a valid predictive model to guide clinical practice; (2) Methods: We screened 14328 PDAC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015. Lasso regression analysis combined with logistic regression analysis were used to determine the independent risk factors for PDAC with distant metastasis. A nomogram predicting the risk of distant metastasis in PDAC was constructed. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and consistency-index (C-index) were used to determine the accuracy and discriminate ability of the nomogram. A calibration curve was used to assess the agreement between the predicted probability of the model and the actual probability. Additionally, decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical influence curve were employed to assess the clinical utility of the nomogram; (3) Results: Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that risk factors for distant metastasis of PDAC included age, primary site, histological grade, and lymph node status. A nomogram was successfully constructed, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.871 for ROC and a C-index of 0.871 (95% CI: 0.860-0.882). The calibration curve showed that the predicted probability of the model was in high agreement with the actual predicted probability. The DCA and clinical influence curve showed that the model had great potential clinical utility; (4) Conclusions: The risk model established in this study has a good predictive performance and a promising potential application, which can provide personalized clinical decisions for future clinical work.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→