Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of our study is to examine the correlation between PSA density (PSAd) at the time of diagnosis with PSA velocity (PSAV), PSA doubling time and tumour progression, on repeat biopsy, in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Data from 102 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer on active surveillance in the period between 1992 and 2007, who had the necessary parameters available, were collected. PSAd was calculated and correlated with PSAV, PSA doubling time (PSADT), Gleason score at diagnosis and local progression on repeated biopsies. PSAV was 0.64 and 1.31 ng ml(-1) per year (P = 0.02), PSADT of 192 and 113 months (P = 0.4) for PSAd below and above 0.15, respectively. The rate of detecting high Gleason score (≥ 7) at diagnosis was 6 and 23% for PSAd below and above 0.15, respectively. A total of 101 patients underwent at least a second biopsy and the incidence of upgrading was 10 and 31% for PSAd below and above 0.15, respectively (P = 0.001). Although low PSAd is an accepted measure for suggesting insignificant prostate cancer, our study expands its role to indicate that PSAd < 0.15 may be an additional clinical parameter that may suggest indolent disease, as measured by future PSAV and repeat biopsy over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it