Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout Canada, the United States and much of Europe, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer has proliferated over the past 2 decades, leading to dramatic increases in detection rates of prostate cancer. Although it has unquestionably led to increased detection of cancer and a migration to lower-stage and -volume tumours, it is still unknown whether PSA screening significantly reduces mortality from prostate cancer. Often thought to be dichotomous (i.e., either normal or elevated), PSA measurements actually reflect cancer risk, with the risks of cancer and of aggressive cancer increasing with the level of PSA. The recently developed risk calculator from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, which integrates family history of prostate cancer, digital rectal examination findings, PSA test result, age, ethnicity, and history of a prior prostate biopsy with a negative result, allows clinicians to assess a patient's individual risk of cancer. This risk should be examined in the context of a patient's life expectancy and comorbidity as well as his concern about the possibility of prostate cancer. The terms "normal" and "elevated" as descriptors of PSA results should be abandoned.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".