MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380730350 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8415

Poster Session 7: Oncology - Bladder

2023· article· en· W4380730350 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Editor CUAJ

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of California, DavisBladder Cancer CanadaUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterFondation CHU de QuébecQuébec Consortium for Drug DiscoveryCanadian Urological AssociationMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de QuébecDartmouth College
KeywordsSession (web analytics)MedicineMedical physicsInternal medicineOncologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prior randomized controlled trials comparing bladder preservation to radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) closed due to lack of accrual.Given that none are foreseen, we used propensity scores to compare trimodality therapy (TMT, maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumor followed by concurrent chemoradiation) to RC. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 722 patients with clinical stage T2-T4N0M0 MIBC urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (440RC/282TMT) who would have been eligible for both approaches, treated at three university centers from 2005-2017.All patients had solitary tumors <7 cm, no or unilateral hydronephrosis, and no extensive/multifocal carcinoma in situ.Differences in survival outcomes by treatment were evaluated using propensity scores incorporated in: 1) propensity score-matching (PSM) using logistic regression and 3:1 matching with replacement; and 2) inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW).Results: A total of 440/1492 (29.5%) of all MIBC surgical candidates were also candidates for TMT.The matched cohort comprised of 1119 patients (837 RC vs. 282 TMT).After matching, age (71.4 vs. 71.6),cT2 stage (90.2 vs. 90.4%),hydronephrosis (11.6 vs. 9.6%), and (neo)-adjuvant chemotherapy (60.4 vs. 56.4%)were similar between groups.Salvage cystectomy was performed in 38 (13%) TMT patients.There was no difference in five-year metastatic-free survival probabilities for RC and TMT either with IPTW (74% vs. 75%,p=0.40)or PSM (78%vs.76%, p=0.62), respectively.The five-year cancer-specific survival probabilities for RC and TMT using IPTW and PSM were 81% vs. 84%, (p=0.07) and 83% vs. 85% (p=0.06),respectively.Overall survival favored TMT (IPTW 66% vs. 73%, p=0.007;PSM 72% vs. 77%, p=0.005).Outcomes for RC and TMT were not statistically different among centers for CSS and MFS (p=0.22-0.90).Conclusions: This multi-institutional study provides the best evidence to date demonstrating similar oncological outcomes between RC and TMT for select MIBC patients.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3890.129

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.269 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→