MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515139654 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.916

Salvage radiotherapy following biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy: proceedings of the Genito-Urinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada consensus meeting

2013· article· en· W1515139654 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael Sia, Tom Pickles, Gerard Morton, L. Souhami, Himu Lukka, Padraig Warde

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesSunnybrook Health Science CentreMontreal General HospitalBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstatectomyRadiation therapyMedicineProstate cancerConsensus conferenceSalvage therapyStatement (logic)Medical physicsGeneral surgeryCancerSurgeryInternal medicinePolitical scienceChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, salvage radiotherapy is the only potentially curative treatment option. However, until recently there has been a paucity of data on the effectiveness of this approach. In light of recently published studies, the Genito-Urinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC) met and crafted a consensus statement regarding the current place of salvage radiotherapy. GUROC also identified gaps in current knowledge and identified ongoing study protocols that will advance our knowledge in this area.This report summarizes the main conclusions of the meeting and the commentary provided during the consensus-building process, and outlines the consensus statement that was subsequently adopted.

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0220.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207