The European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors Staging System (2015): A United States Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the ability of the 2015 modified version of the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors staging system (mENSAT) in predicting cancer-specific mortality (CSM), as well as overall mortality (OM) in adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) patients of all stages, in a large-scale, and contemporary United States cohort. METHODS: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2020) to test the accuracy and calibration of the mENSAT and subsequently compared it to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (AJCC). RESULTS: In 858 ACC patients, mENSAT accuracy was 74.7% for 3-year CSM predictions and 73.8% for 3-year OM predictions. The maximum departures from ideal predictions in mENSAT were +17.2% for CSM and +11.8% for OM. Conversely, AJCC accuracy was 74.5% for 3-year CSM predictions and 73.5% for 3-year OM predictions. The maximum departures from ideal predictions in AJCC were -6.7% for CSM and -7.1% for OM. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of mENSAT is virtually the same as that of AJCC in predicting CSM (74.7% vs 74.5%) and OM (73.7% vs 73.5%). However, calibration is lower for mENSAT than for AJCC. In consequence, no obvious benefit appears to be associated with the use of mENSAT relative to AJCC in US ACC 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".