Systematic Review of Nomograms Used for Predicting Pathological Complete Response in Early Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pathological complete response (pCR) is an important surrogate outcome to assess the effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Nomograms to predict pCR have been developed with local data to better select patients who are likely to benefit from NAC; however, they were never critically reviewed regarding their internal and external validity. The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise nomograms published in the last 20 years (2010-2022). Articles about nomograms were searched in databases, such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane. A total of 1120 hits were found, and seven studies were included for analyses. No meta-analysis could be performed due to heterogeneous reports on outcomes, including the definition of pCR and subtypes. Most nomograms were developed in Asian centers, and nonrandomized retrospective cohorts were the most common sources of data. The most common subtype included in the studies was triple negative (50%). There were articles that included HER2+ (>80%). In one study, scholars performed additional validation of the nomogram using DFS and OS as outcomes; however, there was a lack of clarity on how such endpoints were measured. Nomograms to predict pCR cannot be extrapolated to other settings due to local preferences/availability of NAC. The main gaps identified in this review are also opportunities for future nomogram research and development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".