MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of clinically accessible nomograms to predict risk of brain metastases at baseline and follow-up in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

2024· article· en· W4399671887 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Mansouri, Hannah Wilding, Nicholas Mikolajewicz, Debarati Bhanja, Camille Moeckel, Ahmad Ozair, Nima Hamidi, Cyril Tankam, Mason Stoltzfus, Angel Ray Baroz, Caleb Stahl, Mara Trifoi, Cain Dudek, Manmeet S. Ahluwalia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNomogramOncologyLung cancerInternal medicineCancerBaseline (sea)Brain metastasisMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2035 Background: Brain metastases (BM) are a common complication in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Reliable models predicting risk of BM development are lacking, hindering effective CNS screening and patient prognostication. In the era of precision medicine, these are important gaps in our knowledge. The aims of this study were to 1) evaluate published BM risk-stratification algorithms, and 2) develop nomograms to predict BM incidence. Methods: Using a retrospective cohort of NSCLC patients from Penn State Health (2011-2020), we 1) evaluated the performance of published BM risk-stratification algorithms systematically identified, and 2) developed nomograms to predict risk of BM incidence. For Aim 1, published algorithms were benchmarked using AUROCs calculated from logistic regression models. For Aim 2, cox-proportional hazard models were trained using L1-regularization, and nomograms were constructed to predict BM risk at 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow up. Two separate nomograms were developed: Model T0 used only clinical and imaging data available at time of diagnosis, while Model T1 leveraged additional molecular characteristics and treatment history. All models were trained using 70% of data and tested using 30% of data. Time-dependent AUROC metrics for nomograms were calculated using a cumulative sensitivity and dynamic specificity-based estimator. Results: Our cohort included 1904 patients (median age 68, range: 38 to 94 years, BM incidence 22.8%). Aim 1: 12 published algorithms were identified that used variables consistently available in patient charts. Among these, the Zhang 2021 model was the best predictor of cumulative BM risk (AUROC [95% CI] = 0.89 [0.85-0.93]). Aim 2: Model T0 was trained using age at diagnosis and clinical TNM stage and predicted BM incidence at 6-month, 1-year and 2-year follow up with AUROCs of 0.87, 0.85, and 0.87, respectively. Model T1 was trained with additional predictors, including number of extra-cranial metastatic sites, treatment history (e.g., radiation, surgery, chemotherapy, etc.), and mutation profile (EGFR, KRAS, ALK, BRAF), and achieved AUROCs of 0.90, 0.89, and 0.91 at 6-month, 1-year and 2-year follow up, respectively. Distant metastases at time of NSCLC diagnosis (HR [95% CI] = 3.38 [2.28, 4.99]) and number of extra-cranial metastatic sites (HR [95% CI] = 1.75 [1.54, 1.99] per each additional metastasis) were the strongest independent predictors of BM risk. Conclusions: Based on one of the largest NSCLC cohorts to date, we have developed clinically accessible nomograms for prediction of BM development. This tool can be readily applied toward prognostic modeling and risk stratification, refinement of practice guidelines for CNS screening, and patient counseling.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207