MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189609189

Surveillance in stage I testicular seminoma - risk of late relapse.

2002· article· en· W2189609189 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Chung, Crystal Parker, Tony Panzarella, M. Gospodarowicz, S Jewett, M. Milosevic, C. Catton, Andrew Bayley, Betty Tew-George, Malcolm J. Moore, Jeremy Sturgeon, Padraig Warde

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeminomaStage (stratigraphy)Radiation therapySurgeryTesticular cancerChemotherapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance is an alternative to adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I testicular seminoma. We present the long-term results of seminoma surveillance, with emphasis on quantifying the risk of late relapse beyond 5 years. METHODS: From 1981 to 1993, of 431 men with stage I testicular seminoma, 203 were managed by surveillance following radical orchidectomy. The surveillance protocol comprised a combination of clinical examination, CT scans of abdomen and pelvis, chest x-rays and serum markers, at defined intervals. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 9.2 years, 35 men have relapsed. Five of the relapses occurred more than 5 years after orchidectomy (at 5.1, 6.9, 7.3, 7.3, and 9.0 years). The actuarial risk of relapse at 5 and 10 years was 15% (standard error [SE] 1.1%) and 18% (SE 1.8%) respectively. One hundred sixty one men were free of relapse at 5 years, and have been followed beyond this point for a median of 4.3 years. The actuarial risk of relapse between 5 and 10 years was 4% (SE 0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that there is a small but clinically significant risk of relapse more than 5 years after orchidectomy for stage I seminoma. These data support the need for long term surveillance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations76
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207