Pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: Adherence and accuracy of the recent guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The 2004 National Comprehensive Cancer Network practice guidelines recommend pelvic lymph node dissection at radical prostatectomy. We sought to examine the adherence to the 2004 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and to test the their accuracy, as well as the accuracy of the most contemporary National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Urological Association, and European Association of Urology guidelines to predict lymph node metastases. METHODS: A total of 33 037 radical prostatectomy patients were identified, between 2004 and 2006. Adherence to the 2004 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was calculated using three clinically plausible cut-offs: 2, 5 and 10%. The accuracy was tested using the area under the curve. RESULTS: Overall, 63% of patients underwent pelvic lymph node dissection. Of those, 61, 49 and 45% were managed according to the 2004 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline cut-off of 2, 5 and 10%, respectively. The accuracy of all the examined guidelines ranged from 61% to 71%. The highest accuracy was recorded for the European Association of Urology and the 2004 National Comprehensive Cancer Network cut-off 5% guidelines. The lowest accuracy was recorded for the most contemporary National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the 2004 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was suboptimal. The accuracy of all the examined guidelines ranged from 61% to 71%. None of the examined guidelines can be regarded as an ideal indication for pelvic lymph node dissection.
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 | 0.010 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".