Can biological markers predict recurrence and progression of superficial bladder cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological markers that are predictive of recurrence and progression of superficial bladder tumors must provide additional information to that provided by multiplicity, size and grade. Field anomalies in normal appearing urothelium of patients with papillary superficial transitional cell carcinoma have been associated with tumor antigens and chromosome 9 deletions. Also, primary tumors with chromosome 9 deletions are associated with a higher risk of recurrence. Abnormal expression of p53, p21 and Ki-67 cell cycle markers have little predictive value for recurrence. However, p53 overexpression or mutation and decreased expression of p27 are associated with cancer progression and survival. New markers, such as mutations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 gene (found in 30% of tumors), anomalies of the PTEN gene and vascular endothelial growth factor expression, may have potential and require further evaluation. Molecular fingerprints of superficial tumors with distinct clinical behavior are being rapidly unravelled. Large-scale clinical studies are urgently needed to provide supportive evidence for their incorporation in clinical management.
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 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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".