MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic factors of gallbladder cancer (GBC) in patients diagnosed over a period of 20 years: A Canadian province experience.

2024· article· en· W4391096767 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nima Toussi, Krishna Daida, Noura Alsafar, Osama Ahmed, Haji Chalchal, Dorie-Anna Dueck, Joshua Gitlin, Branawan Gowrishankar, Kimberly Marie Hagel, Kamal Haider, Mussawar Iqbal, Rani Kanthan, Duc Le, Shazia Mahmood, Jocelyn Moore, Mike Moser, Deepti Ravi, John M. Shaw, Adnan Zaidi, Shahid Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMedicineGallbladder cancerInternal medicineCancerStage (stratigraphy)CohortRetrospective cohort studyPathologicalPopulationProportional hazards modelDiseaseGastroenterologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

437 Background: GBC is an uncommon but often fatal gastrointestinal cancer. The poor prognosis of GBC may in part be due to lack of effective screening tools and a delay in diagnosis that leads to presentation in the latter stages of the disease. The current study aims to determine outcomes of patients with GBC in relation to contextual, demographic and clinical factors in a Canadian province over a span of 20 years. Methods: In this population-based retrospective cohort study patients with GBC diagnosed in Saskatchewan, Canada from 2000-2019 were evaluated. Cox proportional multivariate regression analyses was performed to determine factor correlated with inferior outcomes. Results: 331 patients with median age of 74 yrs and M:F of 1:2 were identified. 92% had a pathological diagnosis of GBC & 80% had adenocarcinoma. 49% were diagnosed >year 2010. 217 (66%) of those diagnosed with GBC were rural residents. 149 (45%) patients were referred to a cancer center. In patients with documented stage, 64% had stage IV disease & >90% were symptomatic with a median time from the onset of symptoms to the diagnosis of 7 months. Rural residents have a significantly high rate of smoking history whereas urban residents have significantly high rates of pathological diagnosis, low serum albumin and elevated platelet count. Median overall survival (OS) of patients with stage I-III GBC was 20 months (95% CI:10.9-29.1) vs. 4.0 months (3.0-5.0) with stage IV GBC (<0.001). No significant differences were noted in OS in relation to residence and time-period of diagnosis. Patients who were not referred for a cancer center had a median OS of 3 months (1.98-4.0) vs. 13 months (9.9-16.1), p<0.001. Median disease-free survival (DFS) of patients with stage I-III GBC was 20 months (95%CI: 10-30.1) with 5-year DFS of 36%. Patients with stage I-III GBC who received adjuvant chemotherapy had 5-yr DFS of 43% vs. 33% without adjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.73). 5-year DFS of urban patients was 25% vs. 42% of rural patients (p=0.016). On multivariate analysis for patients with Stage I-III GBC, stage III disease, HR (hazard ratio), 2.63 (1.09-6.34) and urban residence, HR, 2.20 (1.1-4.39) were correlated with inferior DFS whereas for all patients, stage IV disease, HR, 3.02 (1.85-4.94); no referral to cancer center, HR, 2.64 (1.51-4.62); lack of surgery, HR, 1.63 (1.03-2.57); neutrophil:lymphocyte of >3.2, HR, 1.57 (1.05-2.36); and age ≥70, HR, 1.51 (1.04-2.19) were correlated with inferior OS. Conclusions: In a real-world setting, most patients with GBC are diagnosed with late-stage disease and were not referred to cancer center. For early-stage GBC, urban residence and stage III disease were correlated with inferior outcome, whereas for all stage GBC, stage IV disease, old age, lack of surgery, lack of referral to cancer center, and high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were correlated with inferior survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207