P11.63.B VALIDATING THE NEUROLOGIC ASSESSMENT IN NEURO-ONCOLOGY (NANO) SCALE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: A MULTI-CENTER PROSPECTIVE STUDY IN PATIENTS WITH GLIOBLASTOMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND The neurologic assessment in neuro-oncology (NANO) scale was developed as a standardized metric to objectively measure neurologic function in patients with brain tumors and complement radiographic assessment in defining overall outcomes. The scale has been incorporated in clinical trials, however, real-world use of the NANO scale to drive clinical decision-making and the predictive value of the NANO scale to determine overall survival remains unclear in glioblastoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS We report on an ongoing multi-center study of prospective NANO score collection to evaluate neurologic function in patients with glioblastoma, seen at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center (SHSC). Patient demographics, tumor histology, molecular status, treatment history, and progression dates are being captured. NANO score, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and corticosteroid dose are collected at prespecified time points (prior to start of therapy, and during each subsequent MRI visit). Changes in the NANO score will be correlated to overall survival and subgroup analyses will be performed for specific domains of the NANO scale. Statistical analyses including descriptive data analysis and generalized linear models will be performed using R (version 3.4.3). RESULTS Since June 2020, 145 patients have been enrolled in this study across the two sites including 90 (62%) with ≥2 follow-up visits. 129 patients had baseline post-operative NANOs captured, with 45 (35%) patients having no deficits in any NANO domain at baseline. All patients with intact baseline NANO had a KPS of 80 or above. Adaptation to a virtual platform for NANO (vNANO) allowed for improved recruitment and follow-up of patients. Validation of vNANO is being performed in a subset of this population. Our interim analysis will be presented at the 2023 EANO meeting. CONCLUSION Evaluation of neurologic function by NANO is feasible in both an in-person and virtual framework in a prospective multi-center study in patients with glioblastoma. NANO is able to objectively track neurologic function throughout disease course in glioblastoma. Integration of vNANO may allow for reduced clinical visits and improve access to specialized care for patients in geographically remote locations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".