MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract A010: Are We Delaying Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis in Young Women?: Sensitivity of CA-125 Thresholds for Early-Onset Ovarian cancer in Large Cohort

2025· article· en· W7113898291 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvarian cancerCohortGynecologic oncologyReferralCancerSerous fluidCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) thresholds are used in diagnostic guidelines for ovarian cancer, especially around which patients need prompt referral to gynecologic oncology. Based on expert opinion, CA-125 ≥ 35 units/mL are considered abnormal for postmenopausal patients, while levels up to 250 units/mL are considered normal for younger patients. However, these thresholds have not been evaluated in modern practice. Our objective was to compare the sensitivity of different CA-125 thresholds for early-onset ovarian cancer. Methods: The University Institutional Review Board reviewed and exempted this study. We identified patients with newly-diagnosed ovarian cancer from the Penn Medicine Cancer Registry, 2009-2023 (n=2,785) supplemented with patients identified by ICD codes, 2020-2023 (n=1,342). CA-125 values obtained within 60 days of diagnosis were abstracted from the electronic health record. We examined the sensitivity of current CA-125 thresholds by patient age (<50, ≥50 years). Results: Among 1670 patients with ovarian cancer and CA-125 at diagnosis, the median CA-125 at diagnosis was 94.0 (range 29.0, 490.0) for patients with early-onset ovarian cancer (n=790) compared to 272.0 (range 53.0,1008.0) in women age 50 and older. At diagnosis, 30% patients with early-onset ovarian cancer had CA-125 <35 units/mL and 65% had CA-125 <250 units/mL. Among patients with early-onset high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 13% had CA-125 <35 units/mL at diagnosis. Lowering the “normal” CA-125 threshold to 15 units/mL achieved similar sensitivity among individuals <50 years (8.6%) and those 50 years and older (7.7%). Conclusion: Current thresholds of abnormal CA-125, and gynecologic oncology referral, miss individuals with early-onset ovarian cancer. Updated thresholds are needed to avoid delays in diagnosis, and the potential for cure, in younger individuals with ovarian cancer. Citation Format: Anna Jo B. Smith, Camille McAllister, Anne Marie McCarthy, Elizabeth A. Howell. Are We Delaying Ovarian Cancer Diagnosis in Young Women?: Sensitivity of CA-125 Thresholds for Early-Onset Ovarian cancer in Large Cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: The Rise in Early-Onset Cancers—Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities; 2025 Dec 10-13; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(23_Suppl):Abstract nr A010.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.037
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→