Adjunctive statistical standardization of quantitated adjuvant ER and PgR in CCTG MA.27.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
567 Background: We proposed adjunctive statistical standardization of quantitated ER and PgR to improve inter-laboratory comparability of biomarker results and therapeutic management of breast cancer. Methods: We utilized CCTG MA.27 (NCT00066573), an adjuvant phase III trial of exemestane versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with ER+ and/or PgR+ tumours. IHC ER and PgR HSCORE and % positivity (%+) were centrally assessed by machine image quantitation, and each statistically standardized to mean of 0, standard deviation of 1 following Box-Cox variance stabilization transformations of square for ER; for PgR, 1.) natural logarithm (0.1 added to 0 HSCOREs and 0 %+), 2.) square root. The primary endpoint was STEEP distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at the longest trial follow-up of median 4.1 years; a secondary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Survival was described with Kaplan-Meier plots and tested with the univariate Wilcoxon (Peto-Prentice) test statistic. We examined cut-points at standard deviations about mean of 0 (<-1; (-1,0]; (0,1]; >1) and explored single cut-points. Cox multivariate regressions were adjusted for age, T and N stage, grade, lymphovascular invasion, treatment, and baseline patient demographics; 2-sided Wald tests had nominal significance if p<0.05. Results: Of the 7576 women accrued, 3048 women had machine-quantitated image analysis results: 2900 (95%) for ER; 2726 (89%) for PgR. Statistically standardized HSCORE and %+ units differentiated both univariate DDFS and EFS; DDFS was significantly different by ER levels (p<0.001) and PgR levels (p<0.001). In multivariable assessments, ER HSCORE and %+ were not significantly associated (p=0.52-0.88) with the DDFS primary endpoint in models with PgR, while higher PgR HSCORE and %+ had significantly better DDFS (p=.001, in all instances) in models with ER. Conclusions: DDFS was superior for patients with higher ER and PgR standardized units compared with those with HSCOREs and %+ <-1. The adjunctive statistical standardization of ER and PgR performed here is similar to that mandated for clinical practice by the World Health Organization for BMD. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.040 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".