MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6990072716

Comparison of a Newly Proposed Staging System with 7th Edition AJCC/UICC System for Surgically Resected Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

2018· dissertation· en· W6990072716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrahepatic CholangiocarcinomaStaging systemTNM staging systemConcordanceProportional hazards modelStage (stratigraphy)Multivariate analysisCancerCohortCancer stagingLiver cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) is a rare but lethal primary liver cancer. Debate exists about whether tumor size should be considered in disease staging. This study aimed to examine the association between tumor size and overall survival (OS) in surgically resected patients with IHCC and to compare a newly proposed staging system that includes tumor size with the current American Joint Cancer Committee on Cancer classification/ Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) system. Methods: This is a retrospective population-based study from 2002-2012 in Ontario, Canada. Patients with IHCC who underwent surgical resection were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and Canadian Institute for Health Information. Pathology data was abstracted from primary pathology reports. The association between largest tumor size and OS was assessed with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. The predictive accuracy and discriminative abilities of the 7th edition AJCC/UICC TNM staging system was compared with the newly proposed staging system using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the proportional hazards model and a concordance index (c-index), respectively. Results: The study cohort of 121 cases had a median age of 63.9 (Range: 30.7-86.0), 43% were men, the median tumor size was 6 cm (Range: 0.6-13.0), and median follow-up time was 37.6 months (Range: 0.3-126.7). After multivariate analysis adjusting for sex and T-category, no association was observed between tumor size and OS (HR for ≥5 cm=1.08, 95% CI: 0.34-3.49, p-value=0.893). Comparison of the TNM staging systems revealed that the 7th edition AJCC/UICC was comparable at predicting and discriminating survival to the newly proposed system (c-index=0.92 vs 0.86). Conclusion: There is no association between tumor size and OS in patients with surgically resected IHCC and these results argue against the inclusion of tumor size into IHCC disease staging.

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)0.006
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207