Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the rate of significant upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens in a contemporary cohort, and to develop a prognostic model capable of predicting the probability of significant upgrading, as previous reports indicate that up to 43% of men with low-grade prostate cancer at biopsy will be diagnosed with high-grade cancer at RP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised 4789 men (median age 63 years, range 39-82) treated with RP, with available clinical stage, prostate-specific antigen levels, biopsy and RP Gleason sum values. These variables were used as predictors in multivariate logistic regression models (LRMs) addressing the rate of significant Gleason sum upgrading, defined as a Gleason sum increase either from < or = 6 to > or = 7 or from 7 to > or = 8 between the biopsy and RP specimens. Regression coefficients were used to develop and validate (200 bootstrap re-samples) a nomogram predicting significant biopsy Gleason sum upgrading. RESULTS: Significant biopsy Gleason sum upgrading was recorded in 1349 (28.2%) patients. In multivariate LRMs, all predictors were highly significant (all P < 0.001). The bootstrap-corrected accuracy of the nomogram predicting the probability of significant Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and RP specimens was 75.7%. CONCLUSION: Our nomogram might prove highly useful when the possibility of a more aggressive Gleason variant could change the treatment options.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".