In Treating Localized Prostate Cancer the Efficacy of Cryoablation is Independent of DNA Ploidy Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the prognostic value of DNA ploidy has been well established for radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation, brachytherapy and androgen deprivation therapy its role as a survival outcome predictor for prostate cancer patients treated with cryoablation has not yet been examined. Anecdotal evidence suggesting that cryoablation may be independent of DNA ploidy type led to the implementation of the current study. Retrospective analysis of data including flow digital cytometry was performed on 447 archival specimens taken from patients who had undergone cryosurgical ablation of primary prostate cancer. Five-year biochemical disease free survivals (bDFS) (defined as PSA thresholds of 0.5 and 1.0 ng/ml) were determined with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Patients were grouped according to DNA ploidy types then stratified by Gleason grade, risk group, pre-surgical PSA level, and disease stage. Mean and median age of the cohort was 65 and 64.6 years. Mean follow-up was 65.7 months. The DNA ploidy status of the population was found to be 59% diploid, 13% tetraploid, and 28% aneuploid. Using PSA < 1.0 ng/ml criterion, the bDFS rates for diploid, tetraploid, and aneuploid were 78%, 75%, and 79% respectively. The bDFS rates using a PSA < 0.5 ng/ml criterion were 67%, 59%, and 69% for diploid, tetraploid, and aneuploid groups. No significant outcome differences were found in stratified analysis. This investigation demonstrates that the efficacy of cryoablation is independent of DNA ploidy type.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".