The importance of considering competing risks in recurrence analysis of intracranial meningioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of recurrence is overestimated by the Kaplan-Meier method when competing events, such as death without recurrence, are present. Such overestimation can be avoided by using the Aalen-Johansen method, which is a direct extension of Kaplan-Meier that accounts for competing events. Meningiomas commonly occur in older individuals and have slow-growing properties, thereby warranting competing risk analysis. The extent to which competing events are considered in meningioma literature is unknown, and the consequences of using incorrect methodologies in meningioma recurrence risk analysis have not been investigated. METHODS: We surveyed articles indexed on PubMed since 2020 to assess the usage of competing risk analysis in recent meningioma literature. To compare recurrence risk estimates obtained through Kaplan-Meier and Aalen-Johansen methods, we applied our international database comprising ~ 8,000 patients with a primary meningioma collected from 42 institutions. RESULTS: Of 513 articles, 169 were eligible for full-text screening. There were 6,537 eligible cases from our PERNS database. The discrepancy between the results obtained by Kaplan-Meier and Aalen-Johansen was negligible among low-grade lesions and younger individuals. The discrepancy increased substantially in the patient groups associated with higher rates of competing events (older patients with high-grade lesions). CONCLUSION: The importance of considering competing events in recurrence risk analysis is poorly recognized as only 6% of the studies we surveyed employed Aalen-Johansen analyses. Consequently, most of the previous literature has overestimated the risk of recurrence. The overestimation was negligible for studies involving low-grade lesions in younger individuals; however, overestimation might have been substantial for studies on high-grade lesions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".