Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proper management of prostate cancer is dependent on appropriate risk categorization, based on pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage and Gleason score (GS). The use of radiotherapy in low-risk (T1-T2a, PSA < 10 ng/ml and GS <or= 6) and intermediate-risk (T1/T2, PSA < 20 ng/ml and GS <or= 7) disease is well established, with comparable results to surgery in the era of modern radiation therapy. However, cancer-related outcomes in some radiotherapy patients might still be improved with the use of adjuvant hormonal therapy. There is presently no clear evidence to support its use in low-risk patients and benefits in intermediate-risk patients need to be elucidated in the era of dose-escalated radiation therapy. Hypofractionated radiotherapy using biologically equivalent doses also has the potential to improve the therapeutic index, given the low alpha / beta ratio of prostate cancer, and to reduce overall treatment time, but the most advantageous regimen needs to be determined. In patients with high-risk disease (T3-T4, PSA > 20 ng/ml or GS >or=6 8), radiation with hormones has become the standard treatment. The issues that remain focus on determining the optimal duration of hormones, assessing the use of locoregional dose escalation and determining the possible benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.
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) | 0.002 | 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".