Construction and Verification of a Predictive Nomogram for Overall Survival in Patients with Large Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to show the clinicopathological characteristics of large retroperitoneal liposarcoma (RLS) and to develop a customized nomogram model for patients with large RLS. Methods A total of 1735 patients diagnosed with RLS were selected from the public SEER database. Among them, 1113 patients with a maximum tumor diameter greater than 150 mm were included for further analysis. Nomogram models were developed based on Lasso and multivariate Cox regression analyses. A total of 166 patients that presented in the same period at our institution were used for external validations. Results A larger tumor size in RLS was associated with worse survival outcomes. Lasso and Cox regression analyses consistently identified age, TNM stage, occurrence pattern, histology, and surgery as important prognostic factors for OS. The constructed model demonstrated robust predictive performance, with better time-ROC (time-dependent receiver operating characteristic) for 1-year (83.1%), 3-year (83.8%), and 5-year (81.4%) survival in the training cohort. The concordance index (C-index) was approximately 0.80 in both the training and validation cohorts, reflecting excellent discriminatory ability of the model. Survival risk stratification analysis revealed significant differences in survival outcomes of large RLS (HR = 4.12 [3.31–5.12], p < 0.001, in the training cohort). Decision curve analysis (DCA) confirmed that the nomogram provided greater net benefits across a range of threshold probabilities. Conclusion This study identified important prognostic factors for survival in patients with large RLS and developed a reliable nomogram for predicting OS. The model’s strong predictive performance supports its use in personalized treatment strategies, improving prognosis assessment and clinical decision making for these patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".