Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The study by Lavallee and colleagues is a further attempt to garner data that may be fairly easily collected and collated and potentially used in the prognosis of men with prostate cancer having a radical prostatectomy.1 Such tools are appealing, but the likelihood of a drastic change from prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score and stage is difficult to ignore. This study explores tumour density and found it to be an independent predictor for biochemical recurrence. However, despite its worthy endeavour, tumour density adds little to nomograms. One cannot overstate Kattan’s publication in 1998 of the first nomogram in urologic oncology to predict radical prostatectomy recurrence using preoperative parameters.2 Today, one may wonder if we are attempting to “squeeze an already squeezed lemon dry” in attempting to improve nomograms. Almost all permutations and combinations of grade, PSA and pathological characteristics have been crunched to gain a small advantage, yet, in general, with minimal clinical consequence. It is doubtful that tumour density will become a common utility. Nomograms are becoming tiresome, although necessary. Catto summarizes our lust, hatred and fatigue for the tool we love to study in urology.3 The fact we persist with such tools acknowledges the complexities of treatment decision-making in many cases. One cannot argue with the authors that tumour volume measurement in prostate cancer as a stand-alone tool is unclear.1 Yet methods for calculating tumour volume are variable from the “eye of the pathologist” to more sophisticated digital methods. The use of volumetric analysis is now well-described.4 This digital type analysis was not universally done in this study.1 Furthermore, illustrating tumour volume by a tumour map may be helpful to understand the location of the tumour and also the need for surgery and adjuvant treatment. Certainly, there are limitations particularly that the methodology for calculating volume was not standardized nor was their independent review; there was also limited follow-up and patients were not contiguous.1 It is arguable that these may not have affected the final results, but they certainly detracted from their generalizability. Should we pursue tumour volume and related entities or continue our quest for other biomarkers and genetic profiling? They are not mutually exclusive and they may marry at a later date.5 For now, we will await further incremental advances in our quest for the “perfect” tool. Until we know all about prostate cancer, we should continue to collect data on tumour volume and even density, as markers inevitably will be discovered to complement such data and make for more relevant gains in our understanding of the prognosis of this common, but rarely lethal tumour.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,048 | 0,088 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,018 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».