Identifying Optimal Candidates for Trimodality Therapy among Nonmetastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: This research aims to identify candidates for trimodality therapy (TMT) or radical cystectomy (RC) by using a predictive model. (2) Methods: Patients with nonmetastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were enrolled. The clinical data of 2174 eligible patients were extracted and separated into RC and TMT groups. To control for confounding bias, propensity score matching (PSM) was carried out. A nomogram was established via multivariable logistic regression. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration curves were used to assess the nomogram’s prediction capacity. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was carried out to determine the nomogram’s clinical applicability. (3) Results: After being processed with PSM, the OS of the RC group was significantly longer compared with the TMT group (p < 0.001). This remarkable capacity for discrimination was exhibited in the training (AUC: 0.717) and validation (AUC: 0.774) sets. The calibration curves suggested acceptable uniformity. Excellent clinical utility was shown in the DCA curve. The RC and RC-Beneficial group survived significantly longer than the RC and TMT-Beneficial group (p < 0.001) or the TMT group (p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between the RC and TMT-Beneficial group and the TMT group (p = 0.321). (4) Conclusions: A predictive model with excellent discrimination and clinical application value was established to identify the optimal patients for TMT among nonmetastatic MIBC patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".