The association between patient age and prostate cancer stage and grade at diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of age with prostate cancer stage and grade, as the latter factors at the time of diagnosis influence management and prognosis, with some studies suggesting that they may change as a function of patient age. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The charts were reviewed of an age-stratified (<60, 60-69, 70-79 and > or = 80 years) random sample of men with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed prostate cancer in 1995/96 from three geographical areas in Ontario, Canada. Patients were identified using a comprehensive cancer registry, and the chi-square analysis used to examine the relationship between age and stage, logistic regression for the effect of age on clinically localized disease, and linear regression to assess the age and grade relationships. RESULTS: In all, 347 charts were reviewed; more men in the oldest group had T1 and metastatic disease than had younger men (P = 0.034). The proportion of patients with clinically localized disease (T1 and T2) did not change with age (P > 0.10). Tumour grade, as assessed by Gleason score, increased slightly with age (R(2) = 0.017, P = 0.011). Excluding those patients diagnosed by transurethral prostatectomy did not influence either the age/stage or age/grade relationship. Adjusting for prostate-specific antigen level attenuated the age/grade relationship. CONCLUSION: The stage and grade of prostate cancer at diagnosis changes only slightly with age, probably because of a lower intensity of screening and later diagnosis in older men, rather than any change in prostate cancer biology with age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".