MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410645441 · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zraf056

Assessment of nodal staging and risk factors for nodal involvement in gallbladder cancer

2025· article· en· W4410645441 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJS Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Clinical CenterUniversitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzPenn State College of MedicineSt Vincent's Hospital MelbourneKoç ÜniversitesiCentro Hospitalar Universitário do PortoLietuvos Sveikatos Mokslų UniversitetasUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroUniversità degli Studi di VeronaUniversitair Medisch Centrum UtrechtNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensUniversidad de Buenos AiresUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenRoyal Adelaide HospitalPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of OxfordSemmelweis EgyetemUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversiteit LeidenUniversidad de ExtremaduraOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustMcMaster UniversityAmsterdam University Medical CentersTribhuvan UniversityUniversidad de ChileBrigham and Women's HospitalUniversity of RochesterEmory UniversityUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsMedicinePerineural invasionGallbladder cancerInternal medicineLymphovascular invasionGallbladderLymph nodeOncologyCohortProportional hazards modelCancerStage (stratigraphy)GastroenterologyMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nodal assessment in gallbladder cancer remains challenging, particularly in incidental gallbladder cancer. This understages the number of patients with node-positive disease, resulting in prognostic inaccuracy and insufficient adjuvant treatment. This study aimed to identify risk factors for positive nodes in gallbladder cancer and to compare prognostic discrimination of available nodal staging parameters. METHODS: This international cohort study assessed gallbladder cancer resections undertaken between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for node-positive status and develop a risk prediction score for positive nodes. Nodal staging models, including nodal site, number of positive nodes, and positive node ratio were compared for greatest prognostic discrimination in gallbladder cancer. RESULTS: A total of 3676 patients underwent gallbladder cancer resection across 133 centres in 41 countries. Tumour (T) stage (T2, P = 0.012; T3, P = 0.002; and T4, P < 0.001), lymphovascular and perineural infiltration (P < 0.001), and tumour differentiation (P < 0.001) carried the greatest risk of positive nodes. These three parameters comprised the OMEGA Node Positivity Prediction Score (OMEGA-NOPPS) with C-statistics of 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.84) in the training data set and 0.79 (0.73 to 0.85) in the test data set for identification of node-positive status, highlighting a ≥ 20% increased risk of positive nodes in poorly differentiated tumours with lymphovascular and perineural infiltration despite T1 disease. CONCLUSION: Data from this large multicentre study confirmed that the number of positive nodes is the most discriminative prognostic model for nodal staging in gallbladder cancer. OMEGA-NOPPS provides three simple parameters to stratify nodal involvement according to risk. Incidental gallbladder cancer with lymphovascular and perineural infiltration and poorly differentiated tumours, including early T stages, should be considered for further treatment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.340 · 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