Tribulations of a prostate cancer trial – Lessons learned from TOAD, a Cancer Council Victoria and Transtasman Radiation Oncology Group trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 2004–2009 a total of 226 out of a target of 750 prostate cancer patients have been randomised into the Timing of Androgen Deprivation trial between immediate and delayed androgen deprivation. A screening log was kept by participating centres for the first 928 patients, which documented the reasons for non-entry into the trial; 42.7% of screened patients were ineligible and a further 33.0% were not entered for other reasons. Fewer than 10% of patients cited not wanting to be part of a clinical trial as a reason for non-entry. Strategies to improve recruitment included broadening the eligibility criteria, encouraging international collaboration, the use and support of research nurses in the private health care environment, and the use of phone follow-up. Recruitment will be completed at the number originally intended to inform the interim analysis designed to test the validity of the statistical assumptions, and a combined survival analysis with the Canadian study is planned.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".