MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management of prostate cancer in older men: recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology

2010· review· en· W2114387683 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Pierre Droz, Lodovico Balducci, M Bolla, Mark Emberton, John M. Fitzpatrick, Steven Joniau, Michael W. Kattan, S. Monfardini, Judd W. Moul, Arash Naeim, Hendrik Van Poppel, Fred Saad, Cora N. Sternberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerGeriatric oncologyLife expectancyCancerComorbidityPopulationGeriatricsGerontologyOncologyInternal medicinePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer is the most prevalent cancer in men and predominantly affects older men (aged >or=70 years). The median age at diagnosis is 68 years; overall, two-thirds of prostate cancer-related deaths occur in men aged >or=75 years. With the exponential ageing of the population and the increasing life-expectancy in developed countries, the burden of prostate cancer is expected to increase dramatically in the future. To date, no specific guidelines on the management of prostate cancer in older men have been published. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) conducted a systematic bibliographic search based on screening, diagnostic procedures and treatment options for localized and advanced prostate cancer, to develop a proposal for recommendations that should provide the highest standard of care for older men with prostate cancer. The consensus of the SIOG Prostate Cancer Task Force is that older men with prostate cancer should be managed according to their individual health status, which is mainly driven by the severity of associated comorbid conditions, and not according to chronological age. Existing international recommendations (European Association of Urology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Urological Association) are the backbone for localized and advanced prostate cancer treatment, but need to be adapted to patient health status. Based on a rapid and simple evaluation, patients can be classified into four different groups: 1, 'Healthy' patients (controlled comorbidity, fully independent in daily living activities, no malnutrition) should receive the same treatment as younger patients; 2, 'Vulnerable' patients (reversible impairment) should receive standard treatment after medical intervention; 3, 'Frail' patients (irreversible impairment) should receive adapted treatment; 4, Patients who are 'too sick' with 'terminal illness' should receive only symptomatic palliative treatment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations258
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207