Variations in prostate biopsy practice: A quantitative questionnaire-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ambivalent results of recent large randomized prostate cancer studies have added a significant layer of uncertainty for clinicians and patients contemplating investigation of early disease. This uncertainty and lack of prescriptive recommendations from professional organizations has led to significant variation in practice in North America. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of variation in biopsy recommendations by urologists and to discern factors predictive for these recommendations. METHODS: An anonymous, cross-sectional, self-report questionnaire was sent to all active members of the Canadian Urological Association practicing in Ontario. The survey consisted of demographic data and 10 closed-ended questions designed to capture biopsy preferences in ambiguous clinical situations. Respondent preferences for recommending a prostate biopsy were compared to a guideline-informed study standard. Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to analyze the responses. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 74%. The responses showed considerable variability in recommendations for or against biopsy. While most of the urologists concurred with the research team's study standard recommendations, only 4 scenarios had over 80% concurrence and 1 scenario, which centered on the utility of free PSA, had only had 42% concurrence. None of the respondent's descriptors were associated with trends to recommend biopsy other than the number of biopsies performed per year (p = 0.04). INTERPRETATION: This self-report survey investigating prostate biopsy thresholds identifies considerable variation in practicing urologists in Ontario. The drivers of biopsy recommendations in these relatively ambiguous clinical situations appeared to be age, suspicious rectal examinations, and total PSA.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".