MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077808729 · doi:10.4021/wjon2010.06.211w

Metachronous Testicular Germ-cell Tumors: The Importance of a Long-Term Follow-up

2010· article· en· W2077808729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Filipe Nery

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalignancyTesticular cancerOrchiectomyTesticular Germ Cell TumorCancerStage (stratigraphy)Single CenterSeminomaSurgeryInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) are the most common malignancy in young male adults. They can be bilateral, and occur as a synchronous or metachronous tumor. The authors intend to characterize the prevalence and outcome of metachronous TGCT in the last 12 years of experience at our center. Cancer data base of our center was reviewed in order to find the patients that had TGCT in the period between 1996 and 2008 and, among those, the patients that had a second malignancy in the contralateral testicle after at least 6 months apart. Risk factors, clinical presentation, histological characteristics, staging, therapy and outcome were considered. Two out of 79 patients had metachronous TGCT, representing 2.5% of the group. Both cases had a low stage malignancy at the time of the diagnosis of the first tumor, and the diagnosis of the second TGCT happened 7 and 12 years later. Both patients are still alive without evidence of residual disease, under androgen replacement therapy and with testicular bilateral prostheses. Sperm cryopreservation was done in one of the patients. Long-term surveillance for TGCT is needed due to the probability of a second malignancy after the first 5 years of normal follow up. Special consideration must be given to patients submitted to bilateral orchiectomy concerning sperm cryopreservation, androgen replacement therapy and testicular prostheses.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207