How much does Gleason grade of follow‐up biopsy differ from that of initial biopsy in untreated, Gleason score 4–7, clinically localized prostate cancer?
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
OBJECTIVE: To compare histologic grades between an initial biopsy and a follow-up biopsy in untreated, Gleason score (GS) 4-7, clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective single-arm cohort study, clinically localized, GS 4-7, prostate cancer was managed with active surveillance alone, provided that a pre-defined definition of disease progression was not met. One hundred five (63%) of a total of 168 eligible patients underwent a follow-up prostate biopsy during surveillance. Median time to a follow-up biopsy was 22 months (range: 7-81). Histologic grades between these two biopsies were compared to evaluate the extent of histologic grade change. RESULTS: On the follow-up biopsy, GS was unchanged in 33 patients (31%), upgraded in 37 (35%), and downgraded in 34 (32%). Eleven (10%) had upgrading by 2 Gleason points or more. Eight (8%) had upgrading to GS 8 (none to GS 9 or 10); of these, six were among those with upgrading by 2 Gleason points or more. Twenty-seven (26%) had no malignancy on the follow-up biopsy. Negative follow-up biopsy was more prevalent in patients with a small volume of malignancy in the initial biopsy and a low baseline PSA. CONCLUSIONS: No consistent change in histologic grade was observed on the follow-up biopsy at a median of 22 months in untreated, GS 4-7, clinically localized prostate cancer. Upgrading to GS > or =8 or by 2 Gleason points or more was relatively uncommon.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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