Comparison of stage migration patterns between Europe and the USA: an analysis of 11 350 men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the stage migration patterns in patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer in Europe and in the USA in the last 20 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1988 and 2005, RP was performed in 11 350 men: 5739 from Europe and 5611 from the USA. Independent-samples t-test and the chi-square test were, respectively, used for comparisons of means and proportions. The trend test was used to test the statistical significance of trends in proportions over time. RESULTS; Temporal patterns in patients' age, stage and PSA level at presentation were similar on both continents. Conversely, temporal patterns in Gleason sum distribution differed. In the USA, the rate of biopsy Gleason sums of 2-5 decreased from 32.8% to 0.2% (P < 0.001), while the rate of Gleason sums of 7 and 8-10 increased (P < 0.001). Conversely, in Europe the rate of Gleason sums of 6 increased from 40% to 64% (P < 0.001) at the expense of all other Gleason sums. At RP, the rate of Gleason sums of 2-5 decreased on both continents and the rate of a Gleason sum of 7 increased in the USA. Moreover, no important differences in pathological stage trends (organ confinement, extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion) distinguished either population. Finally, the rate of lymph node involvement increased in the USA but remained stable in Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Stage and grade migration affected the USA and Europe to different extents. These differences should be accounted for when prediction tools or comparisons between the USA and Europe are considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".