Management preferences following radical inguinal orchidectomy for Stage I testicular seminoma in Australasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey to evaluate the preferred patterns of management of Stage I seminoma was conducted during March 2001. The questionnaire was distributed by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists to all qualified radiation oncologists, 74 out of 170 responded. All performed a staging CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis. Thoracic imaging consisted of either chest X-ray (29%) or chest CT (38%) while 33% performed both. Fifty-four percent of radiation oncologists discussed surveillance with their patients but estimated that 5% or less would choose this option. The most commonly prescribed dose was 25 Gy in 15 or 20 fractions (79%). Sixty-five percent of respondents treated the para-aortic (PA) nodes alone. Forty-two of 48 clinicians treating the PA field reported a change in practice after publication of the Medical Research Council study in 1999. Of these, 40 and 23% perform CT scans of the pelvis annually and every 6 months. Thirty-one percent did no follow-up CT scan. Compared to a similar survey from North America, we are more likely to use PA fields and less likely to discuss surveillance. As in the USA, and in contrast to Canada, few patients choose surveillance. There is no consensus regarding the frequency of follow-up scans in either North America or Australasia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".