Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy: Marital status does not make a difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of marital status on prostate cancer characteristics at radical prostatectomy and oncological outcome after surgery at a high-volume center. METHODS: We relied on the Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer database and investigated 8088 prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy between January 2000 and March 2011. We analyzed differences in clinical and pathological characteristics according to marital status (married and partnership vs single). Additionally, we relied on multivariable Cox regression analyses to predict biochemical recurrence, metastases and death after radical prostatectomy. Finally, Kaplan-Meier analyses were used in a propensity score-matched cohort, adjusted for clinical and pathological characteristics, to examine differences in biochemical recurrence-free, metastases-free and overall survival according to marital status. RESULTS: According to marital status, no significant differences were recorded within clinical and pathological characteristics (all P > 0.05). The impact of marital status on biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9-1.3, P = 0.7), metastases (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.8-2.1, P = 0.3) and death (hazard ratio 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.4-1.6, P = 0.6) after radical prostatectomy was not significant (median follow up 48 months). Kaplan-Meier analyses recorded no significant differences for biochemical recurrence-free, metastases-free and overall survival (all log-rank P > 0.05) according to marital status. CONCLUSIONS: Marital status does not affect the clinical and pathological characteristics of radical prostatectomy patients treated at a high-volume center. Furthermore, marital status does not affect biochemical recurrence-free and metastases-free survival after radical prostatectomy.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".