Localized GIST in Hispanic population in North and South America.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e23513 Background: Most studies of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) focus upon patients in a single country. However, differences in patient presentation, treatment, and outcomes may differ between nations. We sought to compare Hispanic patients with localized GIST treated in North and South America. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis including all Hispanic GIST patients treated at 3 tertiary referral centers in the United States (US), Mexico (MX) and Argentina (AR), as well as those enrolled by 2 patient advocacy groups in US and MX from 2000-2022. Demographic, clinicopathologic and survival data were collected and compared using Pearson’s chi-square or one-way ANOVA test. Disease-specific survival (DSS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: Overall, 1,504 Hispanic patients (54.5% female) were analyzed. Median age at diagnosis was significantly lower in US (48 y) than MX/AR (55/57 y, p = 0.001). Presentation stage varied by country. Localized presentation was more frequent in US/MX (77%/88%) than AR (60%, p = 0.001). In 1,208 patients (80.4%) with localized disease, 97.9% underwent surgical resection. Rates of adjuvant imatinib treatment varied from 82.4%/77.0% in US/MX to 35.6% in AR (p < 0.001). Median duration of adjuvant therapy was longer in US (29 mos; range: 16-48) than MX (12 mos; range: 4-36, p < 0.001). With a median follow up of 44 mos (range: 24-78) for patients presenting with localized GIST, the estimated median DSS was 136 mos (95% CI 104-167), being significantly longer in US (267 mos, 95% CI 95-439, p = 0.02). Conclusions: While most studies of disparities focus on differences between races/ethnicities in a single country, we found that disparities also exist within similar ethnic groups across nations. Underappreciated sociopolitical determinants of health likely lead to differences in presentation, management, and long-term outcomes of Hispanic GIST patients in the Americas. Prospective cooperative studies are needed to better define barriers to care in order to improve patient outcomes in Hispanic GIST patients. [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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".