Screening for prostate cancer: Can randomized studies optimize the trade-off between over - and under-diagnosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The outcome from the screening trials on prostate cancer published in recent years may at a first glance seem contradictory. A review of all randomized controlled trials was undertaken in order to explore these divergences. Methods: PubMed was searched for all publications on prostate cancer screening trials . Results: Five randomized controlled trials were found. The only trial that could show a statistically significant impact on prostate cancer mortality was the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), in particular the Gothenburg Centre, which constitutes on of eight units of the ERSPC trials. The absence of significant outcome from the other trials may, however, be explained by higher PSA threshold, longer screening intervals and shorter follow-up. Conclusions: Screening for prostate cancer may reduce prostate cancer mortality, but to the cost of over-detection and over-treatment.
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 | 0.208 | 0.467 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".