Conservative treatment versus early radical cystectomy for T1G3 bladder cancer: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of CT (conservative treatment) and early RC (radical cystectomy) for T1G3 bladder cancer. Methods: A computer-based online search was performed by using EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang and Sinomed databases. Studies of CT vs early RC for T1G3 bladder cancer in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. CT indicated TURBT (transurethral resection of bladder tumor) followed by bladder instillation. Quality of the studies was assessed using Newcastle-ottawa scale. Data were extracted from the studies by 2 independent reviewers. The Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 11.0 software. Results: A total of 8 case-control studues involving 1 018 patients were included. The baseline of these studies was consistent, as the analysis showed no statistical significant differences in age, gender and the proportion of multiple lesions. Meanwhile, there were no statistically significant differences in five-year survival rate [OR (odds ratio): 1.290, 95% CI (confidence interval): 0.898-1.852, P = 0.168], tumor-specific mortality (OR: 0.797, 95% CI: 0.587-1.080, P = 0.143), and rate of tumor progression (OR: 1.278, 95% CI: 0.865-1.887, P = 0.219]. But the ten-year survival rate of CT group was higher than that of the RC group (OR: 1.794, 95% CI: 1.214-2.650, P = 0.003) with a publication bias. Conclusion: For T1G3 bladder cancer, the five-year survival rate, tumor-specific mortality and rate of tumor progression of CT group and RC group had no significant differences. In consideration of greatly declined quality of life, early conservative treatment may be appropriate for the patients with T1G3 bladder cancer. However, such clinical trials are almost retrospective, so large prospective clinical randomized controlled trials are needed for further assessment. DOI:10.3781/j.issn.1000-7431.2013.10.010
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".