Supplementary Material for: Adjuvant chemotherapy after radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma with variant histology: A systematic review and meta-analysis of survival outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To determine effects of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on survival outcomes compared to surgery alone without AC for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) patients with variant histology (VH). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating AC for UTUC in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane library up to January 2023. Population, intervention, comparator, and outcome were UTUC patients with VH, radical nephroureterectomy with AC, radical nephroureterectomy only, and oncological survival, respectively. Results: Four retrospective studies were included. Regarding overall survival (OS), the pooled hazard ratio was 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.87; p = 0.007) across two studies. Regarding cancer specific survival (CSS), the pooled hazard ratio was 0.46 (95% confidence interval: 0.25–0.84; p = 0.01) across three studies. All included studies had a high quality based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Certainty of evidence for OS was low. Certainty of evidence for CSS was moderate due to a strong association (hazard ratio < 0.5). Publication bias was not significant for any studies. Conclusion: In UTUC patients with VH, administration of AC after surgery might have better survival outcomes than surgery alone. Our study provides evidence for decision-making of clinicians who treat UTUC patients with VH.
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 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.619 | 0.029 |
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".