MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311115665 · doi:10.1200/jco.22.02473

The Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma International Prognostic Index: Development and Validation of a Clinical Prediction Model From the HoLISTIC Consortium

2022· article· en· W4311115665 on OpenAlexaff
Angie Mae Rodday, Susan K. Parsons, Jenica Upshaw, Jonathan W. Friedberg, Andrea Gallamini, Eliza A. Hawkes, David Hodgson, Peter Johnson, Brian K. Link, Eric Mou, Kerry J. Savage, Pier Luigi Zinzani, Matthew J. Maurer, Andrew M. Evens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroUniversity College LondonCancer Research UK
KeywordsMedicineInternational Prognostic IndexInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Proportional hazards modelHazard ratioOncologyPrognostic variableMultivariate analysisLymphomaRituximabConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The International Prognostic Score (IPS) has been used in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) for 25 years. However, analyses have documented suboptimal performance of the IPS among contemporarily treated patients. Harnessing multisource individual patient data from the Hodgkin Lymphoma International Study for Individual Care consortium, we developed and validated a modern clinical prediction model. METHODS: Model development via Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guidelines was performed on 4,022 patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage adult cHL from eight international phase III clinical trials, conducted from 1996 to 2014. External validation was performed on 1,431 contemporaneously treated patients from four real-world cHL registries. To consider association over a full range of continuous variables, we evaluated piecewise linear splines for potential nonlinear relationships. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The median age in the development cohort was 33 (18-65) years; nodular sclerosis was the most common histology. Kaplan-Meier estimators were 0.77 for 5-year PFS and 0.92 for 5-year OS. Significant predictor variables included age, sex, stage, bulk, absolute lymphocyte count, hemoglobin, and albumin, with slight variation for PFS versus OS. Moreover, age and absolute lymphocyte count yielded nonlinear relationships with outcomes. Optimism-corrected c-statistics in the development model for 5-year PFS and OS were 0.590 and 0.720, respectively. There was good discrimination and calibration in external validation and consistent performance in internal-external validation. Compared with the IPS, there was superior discrimination for OS and enhanced calibration for PFS and OS. CONCLUSION: We rigorously developed and externally validated a clinical prediction model in > 5,000 patients with advanced-stage cHL. Furthermore, we identified several novel nonlinear relationships and improved the prediction of patient outcomes. An online calculator was created for individualized point-of-care use.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations45
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207