MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312395166 · doi:10.1136/eb-2013-101481

Conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer improves quality-adjusted life expectancy at lower cost compared with initial treatment

2013· letter· en· W2312395166 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Klotz

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerWeb of scienceInternal medicineConservative managementCancerSurgeryGynecologyMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, et al. Observation versus initial treatment for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:853–60.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] What is the best treatment for localised prostate cancer? This simple question, for a common disease now affecting about one in six North American men, does not have a clear answer. This is not a ‘normal’ situation in medicine. For most common diseases, including most primary cancers, there is usually a consensus as to the best therapeutic approach. Not so for localised prostate cancer. Surgery contends with radiation of various types and conservative management, particularly active surveillance, which has made inroads against both of these for favourable risk disease. The lack of consensus reflects many factors, including difficulty in successfully completing randomised comparative trials (RCTs), long timelines to achieve robust endpoints and trade-offs between survival and quality of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnn%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.volume%253D158%26rft.spage%253D853%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252F0003-4819-158-12-201306180-00002%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F23778902%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-158-12-201306180-00002&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=23778902&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F19%2F1%2F40.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000320645000013&link_type=ISI

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207