Predictive models before and after radical prostatectomy
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
CONTEXT: In the last 10 years, several user-friendly predictive tools have been developed to help clinicians in decision-making process before and after radical prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To review the most known and used predictive models in pre-operative and post-operative setting. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A structured, comprehensive literature review was performed using data retrieved from recent review articles, original articles, and abstracts. Used keywords were predictive models, nomograms, look-up tables, classification and regression-tree analysis, artificial neural networks, and radical prostatectomy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A great amount of predictive models has been provided in oncology setting: nomograms, look-up tables, classification and regression-tree analysis, propensity scores, risk-group stratification models, and artificial neural networks. Pre-surgery predictive tools offer the opportunity of getting the most evidence-based and individualized selection of available treatment alternatives. Post-operative predictive models usually provide higher accuracy relative to the pre-surgery models. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions and treatment should be tailored to each individual patient and to the specific characteristics of patients. A number of available predictive models represent a tool to provide accurate prediction of cancer natural history and to improve patients' care.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it