Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low‐risk prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) represents a treatment option for select patients with low-risk, organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). In this report, the authors addressed the rates of misclassification associated with the use of 5 different clinical criteria for AS. Misclassification was defined as the presence of either nonorgan-confined disease or high-grade PCa. METHODS: Between 1992 and 2007, 4885 patients underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at 1 of 2 European academic centers, and the patients were identified who fulfilled the criteria for AS according to 5 different investigational groups (Hardie et al, Roemeling et al, Choo et al, Klotz, and D'Amico and Coleman). Statistics targeted the rates of misclassification for each of the 5 definitions. RESULTS: Four thousand three hundred eight patients, 4047 patients, 3993 patients, 2455 patients, and 2345 patients fulfilled the AS criteria of Hardie et al, Roemeling et al, Choo et al, Klotz, and D'Amico and Coleman, respectively. Extracapsular extension was reported in 13.5% to 26% of patients, and seminal vesicle invasion was reported in 2.9% to 8.2% of patients. When PCa with Gleason scores from 8 to 10 at RP was considered high grade, the misclassification rates were 27%, 25%, 25%, 15%, and 14% for the 5 studies, respectively. Conversely, when PCa with Gleason scores from 7 to 10 was considered high grade, the misclassification rates increased to 56%, 55%, 45%, 42%, and 39%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The currently available AS criteria are limited by a high rate of misclassification. The use of more selective AS criteria may reduce the rate of misclassification but also may reduce significantly the percentage of patients who may be considered for AS.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".