Bibliographic record
Abstract
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer for decades; however, the choice of continuous or intermittent administration is a matter of debate. Two large phase III trials have reported results comparing these 2 forms of ADT administration. The National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) PR-7 trial studied men with an increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and no evidence of metastatic disease after definitive or salvage radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy. The Southwest Oncology Group 9346 trial studied men with newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease. The primary end point in both trials was overall survival with a noninferiority design. The NCIC trial showed that the overall survival in men treated with intermittent ADT was not inferior to that of men treated with continuous ADT, but the SWOG trial was inconclusive regarding noninferiority. Certain domains of quality of life were better in the intermittent arms of both trials. If using ADT in the setting of biochemical relapse, intermittent ADT should be strongly considered over continuous ADT, except perhaps in patients with Gleason score of 8 or higher. In men with metastatic disease, continuous ADT remains the standard of care, because the SWOG trial did not establish noninferiority of intermittent ADT with respect to survival. However, for those with significant side effects from ADT, establishing the risk group, as determined by PSA value after 7 months of ADT or the presence of pain at diagnosis, may help guide the choice of intermittent versus continuous ADT in men with metastatic disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".