MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W114188019

Controversies in prostate cancer radiotherapy: consensus development.

2001· article· en· W114188019 on OpenAlexaffabout
Himu Lukka, Padraig Warde, Tom Pickles, Gerard Morton, Michael Brundage, L. Souhami

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachytherapyProstate cancerRandomized controlled trialRadiation therapyProstatectomyHormonal therapyOncologyClinical trialHormone therapyCancerInternal medicineBreast cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The GU Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC) had a consensus meeting in November 2000 to discuss and develop consensus on four controversial areas: risk assessment of localized prostate cancer, conformal radiotherapy, role of brachytherapy in prostate cancer and combined hormonal therapy and radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The meeting was a success and resulted in consensus being achieved on a number of areas. The group agreed on three risk groupings: low risk, intermediate risk and high risk localized prostate cancer based on clinical stage, Gleason score and PSA level. The participants agreed that based on available toxicity data from randomized controlled trials, conformal treatment techniques should be offered to patients receiving prostatic radiotherapy. Consensus was reached on the role of dose escalation in each of the three risk groups and is summarized in the article. At present there is insufficient evidence from randomized clinical trials to recommend the use of brachytherapy over current other standard therapy (radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy). Non randomized published studies show promising short and intermediate term results. Where ever possible patients should be approached about participation in ongoing RCT's evaluating brachytherapy versus current other standard therapy. Outside a clinical trial the participants felt permanent seed implants should be considered an acceptable treatment option for appropriate patients with low risk prostate cancer. Based on randomized controlled trials the group agreed that patients with high risk disease should be treated with prolonged (up to 2-3 years) adjuvant hormonal therapy. Part of this hormonal treatment may be given in a neoadjuvant fashion. The group agreed that adjuvant hormones should not be routinely used in low and intermediate risk patients. Neoadjuvant hormones have been demonstrated to improve outcome in patients with bulky tumors. The role of neoadjuvant hormones in other patients with intermediate and low risk prostate cancer is unclear and will be clarified with the publication of recently completed studies. The consensus meeting strongly endorsed continued accrual to current studies investigating clinically relevant questions.

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)0.182
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1820.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0100.014
Research integrity0.0250.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations115
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207