MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Moving beyond the traditional two-step approach for prognosis prediction: The BayeSarc model.

2025· article· en· W4410803506 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabriele Tinè, Dario Callegaro, Sandro Pasquali, Jay S. Wunder, Peter C. Ferguson, Anthony M. Griffin, D. Strauß, Andrew J. Hayes, Sylvie Bonvalot, Dimitri Tzanis, Toufik Bouhadiba, Paolo G. Casali, Alessandro Gronchi, Rosalba Miceli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11572 Background: Extremity Soft tissue sarcomas (eSTS) are rare and heterogeneous, limiting the collection of large datasets for robust predictive modeling. Sarculator, a Cox model-based tool for overall survival (OS) prediction, was built using the traditional two-step paradigm (1) model building and (2) external validation. However, this method can underperform on external cohorts, often yielding low predictive accuracy and limited generalizability. We introduced a Bayesian Sequential Learning strategy to iteratively refine Sarculator, incorporating new data while preserving prior properties. Methods: The initial model was built on the Italian Sarculator development cohort, with age, tumor size, tumor grade, and histology as covariates. Sequential updates were then performed with the three original Sarculator external validation cohorts , and a more recent Italian cohort. Each step used the results from the previous update as prior information for the next. Performance was assessed as discriminative ability (C-index) and calibration. Key differences from the original Sarculator were Bayesian Cox modelling, and a piecewise-constant hazard. Results: The two-step approach yields separate performance metrics for each cohort, making generalizability unclear when performance drops (e.g. French cohort, Table). Conversely, the sequential approach progressively increases the total information (number of patients and follow-up), without discarding previous evidence, and readjusts performance metrics at each step. Occasional declines in the C-index reflect cohort-specific divergences but can be reversed in subsequent updates if newer cohorts share similar features. Ultimately, the final BayeSarc outperformed the initial model in discriminative ability, calibration, and reduced uncertainty in predictions. Conclusions: BayeSarc is an accurate, generalizable OS prediction model for eSTS, preserving external validation properties while moving beyond the conventional two-step approach. By building on prior evidence, the model dynamically adapts over time, ultimately relying on 4713 patients, with results independent of cohort order. BayeSarc sets a benchmark for future rare-disease prognostic research, paving the way for incorporating new cohorts and/or prognostic variables (e.g. emerging biomarkers). Cohorts Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy1994-2013 Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada 1994-2013 Royal Marsden Hospital,London, UK2006-2013 Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France 1996-2012 Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy2014-2021 Two-step procedure Dev N=1452 Val 1 N=1436 Val 2N=440 Val 3 N=420 Val 4N=965 C-index 0.767 0.775 0.762 0.698 0.765 Bayesian updating Dev N=1452 Upd 1 N=2888 Upd 2 N=3228 Upd 3 N=3748 Upd 4 N=4713 C-index 0.761 0.775 0.771 0.707 0.796

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207