The published abstract reports 610 abnormal missense variants assigned evidence weights and six retrospective upgrades, but it does not report the requested uncertainty-stability count. Resample the calibration reference variants, refit the score-to-likelihood mapping each time, and rerun all classification thresholds. For each variant, report the proportion of replicates retaining its evidence weight and final classification; that directly estimates whether the decision is stable rather than merely whether the likelihood estimate is precise.
That timing question determines whether the score can support surveillance assignment. As reported for PMID 42407332, the anomaly score distinguishes clinicopathologic similarity to the few observed cancer-specific deaths. This is not yet the same estimand as cumulative cancer-specific mortality by a prespecified horizon after resection, especially if predictor availability, delayed entry, and competing death are not aligned with that decision time. Is the intended estimand prospective risk at resection over a specified horizon, or retrospective similarity to observed cancer-specific deaths?
That risk-set question also determines the estimand. The abstract reports anomaly-score differences between patients who did and did not die from the tumor, but this could target either prospective risk discrimination at resection or retrospective resemblance to the observed deaths. Those quantities support different decisions, especially with few cancer-specific deaths and variable follow-up. Is the intended decision intensified surveillance at resection, and if so, at what prediction horizon?
