[Main grade of Gleason's 7 score of the surgical sample correlated with biologic progression in patients treated for total prostatectomy].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the influence of the main grade of Gleason score 7 of the operative specimen correlated with the blood PSA level on the laboratory progression-free survival of patients treated by radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 331 patients consecutively treated by radical prostatectomy and presenting a Gleason score 7 were analysed. Exclusion criteria were the use of radiotherapy and/or preoperative and/or postoperative endocrine therapy. The main grade (3 or 4), histological stage, and blood PSA level were analysed for their predictive value of laboratory progression-free survival. The mean follow-up was 3.5 years (range: 13.6 to 72.8 months). Laboratory recurrence was defined by a PSA > 0.4 ng/ml. RESULTS: The main grade of Gleason score 7 was 3 in 199 (60%) patients and 4 in 132 (40%) patients with a mean follow-up of 3.6 years. Laboratory progression-free survival rates were 89% and 72% for main grades 3 and 4, respectively (p = 0.03). When the cancer was confined to the prostate, the progression-free survival rates were 96% and 88% for main grades 3 and 4, respectively (p = 0.01). For a PSA < 10 ng/ml, main grade 3 was associated with a better laboratory progression-free survival rate than main grade 4 (p = 0.0007). No difference in terms of laboratory progression was observed in the presence of extraprostatic extension or PSA > 10 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: A high correlation was observed between the main grade of Gleason score 7 and laboratory progression-free survival. Main grade 3 constituted a factor of better prognosis than main grade 4.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".