MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127379225 · doi:10.1586/era.10.183

Optimal timing of radical cystectomy in T1 high-grade bladder cancer

2010· article· en· W2127379225 on OpenAlexaff
Peter J. Boström, Sultan Alkhateeb, Bas WG van Rhijn, Cynthia Kuk, Alexandre R. Zlotta

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyBladder cancerUrologyOncologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T1 high-grade (formerly T1G3) bladder cancer is a challenging clinical entity representing approximately 10-15% of all new bladder cancer cases. The variable natural history of the disease and possible impairment in quality of life associated with radical treatment makes T1 high-grade one of the most challenging uro-oncological patient groups to manage. In particular, the risk of clinical understaging and not recognizing muscle-invasive disease may have detrimental effects on patient outcome. The cornerstone of contemporary staging is restaging transurethral resection (TUR), which helps in defining further management. In patients with restaging TUR stage less than T1, induction bacillus Calmette-Guérin combined with maintenance offers good results. The option of radical cystectomy should be discussed with patients with restaging TUR stage T1 or higher and it is highly recommended to all patients with recurrent T1 of carcinoma in situ during bacillus Calmette-Guérin maintenance. In addition to restaging TUR stage, several other clinicopathological factors, such T1 substaging, associated carcinoma in situ, tumor size and appearance, lymphovascular invasion, and hydronephrosis, aid in the decision making between radical and conservative treatment. Future prospects include improved staging and molecular markers that may guide toward conservative therapy or allow more cT1 patients to be offered nerve-sparing cystectomies and neobladders and, thus, improving quality of life for patients undergoing radical surgery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207