MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385616456 · doi:10.14740/jcgo876

Prognostic Scoring and Outcome of Gestational Trophoblastic Disease Patients

2023· article· en· W4385616456 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Auttaya Ratanakaew, Phornsawan Wasinghon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational trophoblastic diseaseOutcome (game theory)ObstetricsDiseaseGynecologyInternal medicinePregnancyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) uses prognostic scores to predict the development of resistance to single-agent chemotherapy. Requiring combination chemotherapy, high-risk patients are defined as those with an International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) score ≥ 7. Treatment at a specialized center based on an appropriate and prompt diagnosis is needed for the reduction of untimely death as well as to improve the survivability of patients. This study aimed to study for classifying definitions of low-risk, high-risk, and ultra-high-risk prognostic scores. Also, the outcomes of gestational trophoblastic patients and brain metastasis have been observed. Methods: The study was observational design. The medical records of 56 gestational trophoblastic patients who visited the Buddhachinaraj Phitsanulok Hospital between 2012 and 2022 were collected and reviewed. The patients had been classified into three groups: low-risk, high-risk, and ultra-high-risk. The low-risk was stage I - III with a score < 7, while the high-risk was defined as FIGO stage II-III with a score ≥ 7. Also, a risk score ≥ 13 was defined as ultra-high risk. Results: Among the 56 patients in this study, 47 patients were at low-risk, accounting for 83.9%, while nine patients were at high-risk (16.1%). No patient had a score of more than 12, defined as ultra-high-risk. All patients had been alive for at least 10 years after diagnosis with brain metastasis stage IV. The incidence of high-risk GTN patients was displayed in 9/56 (16.1%) with lung and brain metastasis. The high-risk score of GTN with brain metastasis showed an incidence rate of GTN patients among 1/56 (1.78%). The ultra-high-risk group was not presented. Conclusions: Multimodality treatment has benefits for stage IV patients and high-risk groups. However, ultra-high-risk patients with a prognostic score higher than 12 or ≥ 13 have slightly increased mortality rates. A high-risk group FIGO stage IV with brain metastasis is alive in this study. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2023;12(2):46-51 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo876

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicGestational Trophoblastic Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207