Sex or survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Combined long-term androgen deprivation (LTAD) and radiation conveys a prostate cancer-specific survival advantage over combined short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) and radiation. The seminal question is whether or not the gains are worth the adverse effects of LTAD with respect to patient preferences. METHODS: Preferences for LTAD compared with STAD were elicited by direct patient interview using the probability trade-off method. "Time trade-off utilities" (TTOu) for erectile dysfunction and osteoporosis were elicited using the time trade-off method. Participants' current prostate cancer-specific health state was assessed using the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale-Psychometric. Participants' current sexual function was assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). RESULTS: All participants were willing to trade survival rather than undergo LTAD compared with STAD. The mean minimally required increment in prostate cancer-specific survival (MRIS) was 8.2%. The mean TTOu for impotence was 0.78, and the mean TTOu for osteoporosis was 0.71. The MRIS was correlated with the Sexual Desire domain score of the IIEF (Spearman rank-correlation coefficient, r = 0.50; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients desired more prostate cancer-specific survival than what was afforded by LTAD and radiotherapy compared with STAD and radiotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.247 | 0.061 |
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".