Assessing the Performance of Prognostic Scores in Patients with Spinal Metastases from Lung Cancer Undergoing Non-surgical Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to see how well the Tomita score, revised Tokuhashi score, modified Bauer score, Van der Linden score, classic Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) algorithm, SORG nomogram, and New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS) predicted 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year survival of non-surgical lung cancer spinal metastases. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There has been no study assessing the performance of prognostic scores for non-surgical lung cancer spinal metastases. METHODS: Data analysis was carried out to identify the variables that had a significant impact on survival. For all patients with spinal metastasis from lung cancer who received non-surgical treatment, the Tomita score, revised Tokuhashi score, modified Bauer score, Van der Linden score, classic SORG algorithm, SORG nomogram, and NESMS were calculated. The performance of the scoring systems was assessed by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The predictive accuracy of the scoring systems was quantified using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 127 patients are included in the present study. The median survival of the population study was 5.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7-9.6 months). Low hemoglobin was associated with shorter survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.00-2.23; p =0.049), while targeted therapy after spinal metastasis was associated with longer survival (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.51; p <0.001). In the multivariate analysis, targeted therapy was independently associated with longer survival (HR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.17-0.5; p <0.001). The AUC of the time-dependent ROC curves for the above prognostic scores revealed all of them performed poorly (AUC <0.7). CONCLUSIONS: The seven scoring systems investigated are ineffective at predicting survival in patients with spinal metastasis from lung cancer who are treated non-surgically.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".