Outcome for Repeated Biopsy of the Prostate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the relationships between the outcome in the last follow-up prostate biopsy specimen and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), and atypical small acinar proliferations (ASAPs) at the occasion of the initial biopsy in 244 cases in which the initial specimen was negative for tumor and at least 1 follow-up biopsy was done. PSA levels and ASAPs were significantly associated with cancer in the follow-up biopsy specimen (<P < .005; logistic regression analysis); however, the presence of PIN in the initial biopsy specimen did not relate to cancer in the follow-up specimen (P > .1). Thus, the probability that a follow-up biopsy demonstrates cancer depends on PSA and ASAPs, and even when ASAPs are present, serum PSA exerts an influence. For example, low PSA values, 5 ng/mL (5 mug/L) or less, are associated with low probabilities of a positive follow-up biopsy result, even when ASAPs were present in the first biopsy specimen. For higher PSA values, the presence of ASAPs dramatically increases the probability of a positive follow-up biopsy result compared with cases with no atypia or PIN in the first biopsy specimen.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".