External Validation of a Nomogram for Prediction of Side-Specific Extracapsular Extension at Robotic Radical Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Several staging tools have been developed for open radical prostatectomy (ORP) patients. However, the validity of these tools has never been formally tested in patients treated with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). We tested the accuracy of an ORP-derived nomogram in predicting the rate of extracapsular extension (ECE) in a large RALP cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) and side-specific clinical stage and biopsy Gleason sum information were used in a previously validated nomogram predicting side-specific ECE. The nomogram-derived predictions were compared with the observed rate of ECE, and the accuracy of the predictions was quantified. Each prostate lobe was analyzed independently. As complete data were available for 576 patients, the analyses targeted 1152 prostate lobes. Median age and serum PSA concentration at radical prostatectomy were 60 years and 5.4 ng/mL, respectively. RESULTS: The majority of side-specific clinical stages were T(1c) (993; 86.2%). Most side-specific biopsy Gleason sums were 6 (572; 49.7%). The median side-specific percentages of positive cores and of cancer were, respectively, 20.0% and 5.0%. At final pathologic review, 107 patients (18.6%) had ECE, and side-specific ECE was present in 117 patients (20.3%). The nomogram was 89% accurate in the RALP cohort v 84% in the previously reported ORP validation. CONCLUSIONS: The ORP side-specific ECE nomogram is highly accurate in the RALP population, suggesting that predictive and possibly prognostic tools developed in ORP patients may be equally accurate in their RALP counterparts.
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 | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".