MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4315829248 · doi:10.2196/38273

The Outcomes of Surgical and Nonsurgical Treatment in Patients With Spinal Metastases of Lung Cancer: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4315829248 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Panpan Hu, Shuheng Zhai, Xiaoxie Liu, Hongling Chu, Feng Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyClinical trialLung cancerProportional hazards modelCohortRadiological weaponOdds ratioSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Spinal metastases of lung cancer (SMLC) usually have a high degree of malignancy and require multimodality treatment. Patients with SMLC who experience clinical symptoms (eg, local pain, emerging or potential spinal instability, and progressive neurological dysfunction) require surgical treatment. However, there are discrepancies in the comparison of outcomes between surgical treatment and nonsurgical treatment. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a study that aims to compare the clinical outcomes of surgical treatment and nonsurgical treatment for SMLC, explore the prognostic factors of SMLC, and establish a survival prediction model based on these prognostic factors. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study, with an anticipated sample size of 240 patients (120 patients in the surgical group and 120 patients in the nonsurgical group). We will collect baseline data, including demographic, clinical, and radiological information, as well as data from patient-reported questionnaires. Patients will be followed up at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment, and survival status will be assessed every 3 months. The primary outcome is the overall survival period. Prognostic factors associated with overall survival will be analyzed by univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. Odds ratios with 95% CIs will be presented. Statistical significance is set at P<.05. RESULTS: This study has been approved by our institute's Medical Science Research Ethics Committee (IRB00006761-M2021085) after a careful audit of the design and content. Patient enrollment began in June 2022 at our hospital. Data collection is expected to be completed by early 2026, and the study results will be published by mid-2027. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we propose to set up a prospective cohort of patients with SMLC to investigate the outcomes between surgical treatment and nonsurgical treatment. We will explore the role of surgical treatment in SMLC and provide guidance to peer surgeons. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2100048151; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=129450. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38273.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.417 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicManagement of metastatic bone disease→French-language works237,207→