MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Banking of fresh‐frozen prostate tissue: methods, validation and use

2003· article· en· W2066091913 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antony C. P. Riddick, Chris Barker, I. Sheriffs, Rosemary Bass, Vincent Ellis, Krishna Sethia, Dylan R. Edwards, Richard Y. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstateProstatectomyMedicineCystoprostatectomyPathologyTissue bankPCA3UrologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of banking of fresh frozen human prostatic tissue is addressed by a group of authors who have compared its value with what they call “pseudobanked” tissue. They then validate their methodology by a number of methods, including expression of hepsin, which they found to be significantly higher in malignant than in benign tissue. The theme of prostate cancer is continued by an English group looking at recent trends in the use of radical prostatectomy in England, and they make a number of interesting comments about this. Again in relation to prostate cancer, a group from Boston assess the use of steroids after prostate brachytherapy to reduce the risk of acute urinary retention. Authors from McGill University, Montreal and Beth Israel in Boston, comment on the controversial areas of insulin‐like growth factor and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and their role in the genesis of prostate cancer. Other interesting areas such as testicular sparing surgery in testis cancer, and a comparison of hand‐assisted laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy, are also described in this section. OBJECTIVE To describe the establishment, methods, validation and use of a bank of fresh‐frozen human prostate tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS On obtaining informed patient consent, protocols were followed for banking prostate tissue from any type of prostatectomy or cystoprostatectomy. A pseudobanking procedure was devised to determine the accuracy of assessing the histopathological status of the banked tissue. RNA was extracted, its quality assessed and used for quantitative real‐time reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction for the serine protease hepsin . RESULTS To date prostate tissue from 112 patients has been banked, with pseudobanking in 58. The histopathological assessment showed pseudobanked tissue matched adjacent unbanked tissue in 98% of cases for benign vs malignant diagnoses, and in 92% of carcinomas for the Gleason score. Hepsin expression was significantly higher in malignant than in benign tissues ( P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION We established a validated method for banking human fresh‐frozen prostate tissue and applied it successfully. Hepsin expression can be used to differentiate malignant and benign prostate tissue, and as an indicator of tissue heterogeneity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207