MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380886773 · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2023.05.005

Assessment of the VENUSS and GRANT Models for Individual Prediction of Cancer-specific Survival in Surgically Treated Nonmetastatic Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

2023· article· en· W4380886773 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Open Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationCancerKidney cancerRetrospective cohort studyOncologyInternal medicineRenal cell carcinomaSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End ResultsNomogramNephrectomyEpidemiologyCancer registryKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Guidelines recommend VENUSS and GRANT models for the prediction of cancer control outcomes after nephrectomy for nonmetastatic papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC). Objective: To test the ability of VENUSS and GRANT models to predict 5-yr cancer-specific survival in a North American population. Design setting and participants: For this retrospective study, we identified 4184 patients with unilateral surgically treated nonmetastatic pRCC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2019). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The original VENUSS and GRANT risk categories were applied to predict 5-yr cancer-specific survival. A cross-validation method was used to test the accuracy and calibration of the models and to conduct decision curve analyses for the study cohort. Results and limitations: The VENUSS and GRANT categories represented independent predictors of cancer-specific mortality. On cross-validation, the accuracy of the VENUSS and GRANT risk categories was 0.73 and 0.65, respectively. Both models showed good calibration and performed better than random predictions in decision curve analysis. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of a central pathological review. Conclusion: VENUSS risk categories fulfilled prognostic model criteria for predicting cancer-specific survival 5 yr after surgery in North American patients with nonmetastatic pRCC as recommended by guidelines. Conversely, GRANT risk categories did not. Thus, VENUSS risk categories represent an important tool for counseling, follow-up planning, and patient selection for appropriate adjuvant trials in pRCC. Patient summary: We tested the ability of two validated methods (VENUSS and GRANT) to predict death due to papillary kidney cancer in a North American population. The VENUSS risk categories showed good performance in predicting 5-year cancer-specific survival.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.233 · 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