MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417005099 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-3669

Sex-and-ethnicity-related differences in primary central nervous system lymphoma based on the SEER database

2025· article· en· W4417005099 on OpenAlexaff
Sajed Salem, Alexandre Matboui, Juba Sait, Priyanka Nagdev

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary central nervous system lymphomaProportional hazards modelConcordanceCohortRetrospective cohort studyLymphomaSurvival analysisCancer registryStage (stratigraphy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare and aggressive form of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Typically, PCNSL are of the Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) histologic subtype, and despite rarely spreading out of the CNS, the prognosis is poor. In the literature, prior reports have deeply analyzed the influence of age in the prognosis of PCNSL, but large population-based studies on the influence of sex and ethnicity remain scarce. The main objective was to define sex-and-ethnic-related differences in overall survival among PCNSL patients and to develop a risk calculator that allows clinicians to establish individual prognostic. METHODS In this retrospective cohort study using the SEER 17 Registry from the Nov 2024 submission, we identified 5 643 patients diagnosed with PCNSL from 2000-2022. Patients with unknown ethnicity (n=28) were excluded from race-stratified analyses. Overall survival (OS) was computed using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests stratified by sex (male vs female) and ethnicity (Non-Hispanic White (NHW), Non-Hispanic Black (NHB), Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander (API)). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were fitted for age, sex, ethnicity, stage of PCNSL, histologic subtype, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Model performance was assessed by concordance index (C-index) using internal cross-validation. We then built a risk calculator using Shiny (RStudio) to compute individualized 1-3-5 year survival predictions based on the parameters of the best performing model. RESULTS 5 615 patients were included (49% male, median age: 62 years). Median OS for the overall cohort was 18 months. By race, median OS was 16 months for white patients (NHW), 11 months for black patients (NHB), 27 months for Hispanic, and 29 months for Asian patients (API) (p<0.001). Female patients showed a trend toward longer survival compared with males (median OS 20 vs. 16 months, p=0.06) In multivariate analysis, male sex was associated with higher mortality (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.23, p<0.001). Compared to NHW patients, Hispanic (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.91, p<0.001) and API (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.85, p<0.001) ethnic-backgrounds had lower hazard of death, while NHB was associated with higher risk (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36, p<0.001). We compared multiple prognostic models via internal cross-validation: a standard Cox model (C-index 0.704), a splined-age Cox model (0.710), a Cox model with an age-surgery interaction (0.712), a LASSO-penalized Cox model (0.684), and a Random Forest model (0.690). Risk calculator tool for PCNSL was built and fitted according to the Cox model with age-surgery interaction as it achieved the highest performance. CONCLUSION Sex and ethnicity are independent prognostic factors in PCNSL. Male patients and NHB patients had poorer survival, while Hispanic and API patients fare better. Standard therapeutic regiments (chemotherapy, surgery and radiation) remain strong protective interventions to prolong survival. Our PCNSL risk calculator is accessible and allows personalized prognostication.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207