MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort

2011· article· en· W1861816385 on OpenAlexaffabout
Greg Trottier, Monique J. Roobol, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Peter J. Boström, Kimberly A. Fernandes, Antonio Finelli, Karen Chadwick, Andrew Evans, Theodorus van der Kwast, Ants Toi, Alexandre R. Zlotta, Neil Fleshner

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerReceiver operating characteristicCohortInternal medicineProstate-specific antigenOncologyUrologyProstateGynecologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Type – Prognosis (inception cohort) Level of Evidence 1b OBJECTIVE • To compare the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT‐RC) and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC‐RC) in a single‐institution Canadian cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS • At Princess Margaret Hospital, 982 consecutive patients with PCPT‐RC and ERSPC‐RC covariables were prospectively catalogued before prostate biopsy for suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). • Receiver–operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each calculator and prostate‐specific antigen (PSA). • Comparisons by area under the curve (AUC) and calibration plots were performed. • Predictors of PCa were identified by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS • PCa was detected in 46% and high‐grade (HG) PCa (Gleason ≥4) in 23% of subjects with a median PSA level of 6.02 ng/mL. • Multivariable analysis identified transrectal ultrasonography nodule, prostate volume and PSA as the most important predictors of PCa and HG PCa. • ROC curve analysis showed that the ERSPC‐RC (AUC = 0.71) outperformed the PCPT‐RC (AUC = 0.63) and PSA (AUC = 0.55), for PCa prediction, P < 0.001. • The PCPT‐RC was better calibrated in the higher prediction range (40–100%) than the ERSPC‐RC, whereas the ERSPC‐RC had better calibration and avoided more biopsies in the lower risk range (0–30%). • Discrimination of the ERSPC‐RC continued to be superior to the PCPT‐RC when the cohort was stratified by different clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS • The ERSPC‐RC had better discrimination for predicting PCa compared to the PCPT‐RC in this Canadian cohort. • Calibration would need to be improved to allow routine use of the ERSPC‐RC in Canadian practice. What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator (ERSPC‐RC) has been validated in a European population and shown to outperform the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator (PCPT‐RC) for predicting prostate cancer. However, the ERSPC‐RC has not been validated in North America where the PCPT‐RC has been extensively validated. This study is the first to compare these calculators in non‐European patient cohort showing better performance of the ERSPC‐RC, but poor calibration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations68
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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