MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A pretreatment nomogram predicting biochemical failure after salvage cryotherapy for locally recurrent prostate cancer

2009· article· en· W1539463312 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe E. Spiess, Aaron E. Katz, Joseph L. Chin, Duke Bahn, Jeffrey Cohen, Katsuto Shinohara, Mike Hernández, Julie Bossier, Wassim Kassouf, Louis L. Pisters

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNomogramProstate cancerCryotherapyStage (stratigraphy)Prostate-specific antigenRetrospective cohort studyConcordanceBiopsyInternal medicineSurgeryLogistic regressionClinical endpointCohortCancerClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To gather a pooled database from six tertiary-care referral centres using salvage cryotherapy (SC) for locally recurrent prostate cancer, and develop a pretreatment nomogram allowing a prediction of the probability of biochemical failure after SC, based on pretreatment clinical variables. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 797 men treated at six tertiary-care referral centres with SC for locally recurrent disease after primary radiotherapy with curative intent. The median duration of follow-up from the time of SC to the date of last contact was 3.4 years. The primary study endpoint was biochemical failure, defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after SC of >0.5 ng/mL. RESULTS: Overall, the rate of biochemical failure was 66% with a median of 3.4 years of follow-up. A logistic regression model was used to predict biochemical failure. Covariates included serum PSA level at diagnosis, initial clinical T stage, and initial biopsy Gleason score. On the basis of these results, a pretreatment nomogram was developed which can be used to help select patients best suited for SC. Our pretreatment nomogram was internally validated using 500 bootstrap samples, with the concordance index of the model being 0.70. CONCLUSION: A pretreatment nomogram based on several diagnostic variables (serum PSA level at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason grade, and initial clinical T stage) was developed and might allow the selection of ideal candidates for SC.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207