MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069189999 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.11224

How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer?

2012· article· en· W2069189999 on OpenAlex
Ege Can Şerefoğlu, Serkan Altınova, Egemen Akıncıoğlu, Erem Asil, Derya Balbay

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerProstateProstate biopsyCore biopsyMedicineCancer detectionCore (optical fiber)UrologyRadiologyCancerInternal medicineComputer scienceBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Prostate biopsies incur the risk of being false-negative and this risk has not yet been evaluated for 12-core prostate biopsy. We calculated the false-negative rate of 12-core prostate biopsy and determined the patient characteristics which might affect detection rate. METHODS: We included 90 prostate cancer patients (mean age of 64, range: 49-77) diagnosed with transrectal ultrasound guided 12-core prostate biopsy between December 2005 and April 2008. All patients underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and the 12-core prostate biopsy procedure was repeated on surgical specimen ex-vivo. Results of preoperative and postoperative prostate biopsies were compared. We analyzed the influence of patient age, prostate weight, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, free/total PSA ratio, PSA density and Gleason score on detection rate. RESULTS: In 67.8% of patients, prostate cancer was detected with repeated ex-vivo biopsies using the same mapping postoperatively. We found an increase in PSA level, PSA density and biopsy Gleason score; patient age, decreases in prostate weight and free/total PSA ratio yielded higher detection rates. All cores, except the left-lateral cores, showed mild-moderate or moderate internal consistency. Preoperative in-vivo biopsy Gleason scores remained the same, decreased and increased in 43.3%, 8.9% and 47.8% of patients, respectively, on final specimen pathology. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rate of prostate cancer with 12-core biopsy in patients (all of whom had prostate cancer) was considerably low. Effectively, repeat biopsies can still be negative despite the patient's reality of having prostate cancer. The detection rate is higher if 12-core biopsies are repeated in younger patients, patients with high PSA levels, PSA density and Gleason scores, in addition in patients with smaller prostates, lower free/total PSA ratios.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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