MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399948943 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31070267

Dynamic Prediction of Overall Survival for Patients with Osteosarcoma: A Retrospective Analysis of the EURAMOS-1 Clinical Trial Data

2024· article· en· W4399948943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marta Spreafico, Audinga‐Dea Hazewinkel, Hans Gelderblom, Marta Fiocco

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineOsteosarcomaOncologyClinical trialRetrospective cohort studyOverall survivalInternal medicineBioinformaticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current prediction models for patients with ostosarcoma are restricted to predictions from a single, static point in time, such as diagnosis or surgery. These approaches discard information which becomes available during follow-up and may have an impact on patient's prognosis. This study aims at developing a dynamic prediction model providing 5-year overall survival (OS) predictions from different time points during follow-up. The developed model considers relevant baseline prognostic factors, accounting for where appropriate time-varying effects and time-varying intermediate events such as local recurrence (LR) and new metastatic disease (NM). A landmarking approach is applied to 1965 patients with high-grade resectable osteosarcoma from the EURAMOS-1 trial (NCT00143030). Results show that LR and NM negatively affected 5-year OS (HRs: 2.634, 95% CI 1.845-3.761; 8.558, 95% CI 7.367-9.942, respectively). Baseline factors with strong prognostic value (HRs > 2) included poor histological response (≥10% viable tumor), axial tumor location, and the presence of lung metastases. The effect of poor versus good histological response changed over time, becoming non-significant from 3.25 years post-surgery onwards. This time-varying effect, as well as the strong impact of disease-related time-varying variables, show the importance of including updated information collected during follow-up in the model to provide more accurate survival predictions.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→