MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019644784 · doi:10.1177/153303460500400210

Current Status of Salvage Cryoablation for Prostate Cancer following Radiation Failure

2005· review· en· W2019644784 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology in Cancer Research & Treatment · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryoablationMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerBrachytherapyRadiation therapySalvage therapyProstateCryosurgeryCryotherapySurgeryCancerUrologyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of salvage cryoablation of the prostate for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer that have failed radiotherapy to the prostate is reviewed with reference to alternatives including salvage radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy. The diagnosis and work-up of local recurrence/persistence of cancer in the prostate are reviewed and the patient selection criteria for salvage cryoablation is discussed. Technical aspects of the cryoablation procedure along with the outcome in terms of cancer control and treatment-related complications are detailed. The five-year biochemical disease-free rate is approximately 40%. The complication rate is acceptable. Salvage cryoablation definitely has a role in the management of localized prostate cancer treatment failure following radiotherapy, especially in older patients and those with some comorbidities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it