MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN BASED PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING: ACCUMULATING EVIDENCE OF EFFICACY BUT PERSISTENT UNCERTAINTY

2005· letter· en· W2128736193 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerald L. Andriole

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRectal examinationProstate cancerProstate cancer screeningProstateProstate-specific antigenOncologyInternal medicineGynecologyCancerProstate biopsyRandomized controlled trialUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No AccessJournal of UrologyEditorials1 Aug 2005PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN BASED PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING: ACCUMULATING EVIDENCE OF EFFICACY BUT PERSISTENT UNCERTAINTY Gerald L. Andriole Gerald L. AndrioleGerald L. Andriole More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000171051.35187.d0AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN BASED PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING: ACCUMULATING EVIDENCE OF EFFICACY BUT PERSISTENT UNCERTAINTY." The Journal of Urology, 174(2), pp. 413–414 References 1 Crawford, E. D., Chia, D., Andriole, G. L., Redding, D., Gelmann, E. P., Gohagan, J. K. et al: PSA testing interval reduction in screening intervals: data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2002, abstract 4, 2002 Google Scholar 2 : Recommended prostate-specific antigen testing intervals for the detection of curable prostate cancer. JAMA1997; 177: 1475. Google Scholar 3 : Prostate cancer mortality after introduction of prostate-specific antigen mass screening in the Federal State of Tyrol, Austria. Urology2001; 58: 417. Google Scholar 4 : Screening decreases prostate cancer death: first analysis of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. The Prostate1999; 38: 83. Google Scholar 5 : Case-control study of screening for prostatic cancer by digital rectal examinations. Lancet1991; 337: 1526. Google Scholar 6 : Screening digital rectal examination and prostate cancer mortality: a case-control study. J Med Screen1998; 5: 99. Google Scholar 7 : Prostate biopsy following a positive screen in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. J Urol2005; 173: 746. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Prostate Cancer Screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst2005; 97: 433. Google Scholar Division of Urologic Surgery; Washington University School of Medicine; St. Louis, Missouri© 2005 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 174Issue 2August 2005Page: 413-414 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2005 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Gerald L. Andriole More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.306
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.306
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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