Bibliographic record
Abstract
One consistent finding in the studies regarding treating men with prostate cancer is that men with high-risk disease have the most to gain from treatment with curative intent. Men with high-risk or locally-advanced prostate cancer require treatment to the primary cancer or risk dying prematurely from their disease. Increasingly, combined androgen deprivation therapy + radiation treatment is seen as the standard treatment as a result of prospective studies in this space, and the perceived increased morbidity of radical prostatectomy in the setting of a "low" cure rate as monotherapy. In the absence of a well-conducted randomized trial, there is no definite evidence that one treatment is superior to the other. The advantages of radical prostatectomy are that it provides excellent local control of the primary tumor without an increase in morbidity, accurately stages the disease to guide further therapy, and removes benign sources of prostate-specific antigen so that failures can be promptly identified and subsequent treatment can be initiated in a timely manner. Although several guidelines recommend radiation treatment over radical prostatectomy as first-line treatment, there is no evidence that surgery is inferior and radical prostatectomy should remain part of any informed discussion regarding treatment options for men with high-risk prostate cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".