Estimating sojourn time and sensitivity of screening for ovarian cancer using a Bayesian framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is among the leading causes of gynecologic cancer-related death. Past ovarian cancer screening trials using combination of cancer antigen 125 testing and transvaginal ultrasound failed to yield statistically significant mortality reduction. Estimates of ovarian cancer sojourn time-that is, the period from when the cancer is first screen detectable until clinical detection-may inform future screening programs. METHODS: We modeled ovarian cancer progression as a continuous time Markov chain and estimated screening modality-specific sojourn time and sensitivity using a Bayesian approach. Model inputs were derived from the screening arms (multimodal and ultrasound) of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trials. We assessed the quality of our estimates by using the posterior predictive P value. We derived histology-specific sojourn times by adjusting the overall sojourn time based on the corresponding histology-specific survival from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. RESULTS: The overall ovarian cancer sojourn time was 2.1 years (posterior predictive P value = .469) in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian studies, with 65.7% screening sensitivity. The sojourn time was 2.0 years (posterior predictive P value = .532) in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening's multimodal screening arm and 2.4 years (posterior predictive P value = .640) in the ultrasound screening arm, with sensitivities of 93.2% and 64.5%, respectively. Stage-specific screening sensitivities in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian studies were 39.1% and 82.9% for early-stage and advanced-stage disease, respectively. The histology-specific sojourn times ranged from 0.8 to 1.8 years for type II ovarian cancer and 2.9 to 6.6 years for type I ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Annual screening is not effective for all ovarian cancer subtypes. Screening sensitivity for early-stage ovarian cancers is not sufficient for substantial mortality reduction.
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 | 0.061 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".