Surgery Provides Better Oncologic Outcomes than Radiation for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyOpposing Views1 Aug 2016Surgery Provides Better Oncologic Outcomes than Radiation for the Treatment of Prostate Canceris corrected byErratum Laurence Klotz and Christopher P. Evans Laurence KlotzLaurence Klotz More articles by this author and Christopher P. EvansChristopher P. Evans More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.008AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail References 1 : Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med2008; 148: 435. Google Scholar 2 : Radical surgery versus radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol1982; 128: 502. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature. CA Cancer J Clin2009; 59: 379. Google Scholar 4 : Comparative risk-adjusted mortality outcomes after primary surgery, radiotherapy, or androgen-deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer2010; 116: 5226. Google Scholar 5 : Survival among men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol2012; 187: 1259. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Comparison of mortality outcomes after radical prostatectomy versus radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer: a population-based analysis. Int J Urol2012; 19: 836. Google Scholar 7 : Cancer-specific survival after metastasis following primary radical prostatectomy compared with radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients: results of a population-based, propensity score-matched analysis. Eur Urol2014; 65: 693. Google Scholar 8 : Comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy in prostate cancer: observational study of mortality outcomes. BMJ2014; 348: 1502. Google Scholar 9 : Radical prostatectomy vs radiotherapy vs observation among older patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparative effectiveness evaluation. BJU Int2014; 113: 200. Google Scholar 10 : Surgery versus radiotherapy for clinically-localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol2015; 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.11.010. Crossref, Google Scholar 11 : Metastasis after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiotherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparison of clinical cohorts adjusted for case mix. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 1508. Google Scholar 12 : Incidence of complications other than urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol2014; 15: 223. Google Scholar 13 : Pharmacologic androgen deprivation and cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Invest2015; 45: 475. Google Scholar 14 : Adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One2014; 10.1371/journal.pone.0104918. Crossref, Google Scholar © 2016 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of Urology9 Aug 2016Erratum Volume 196Issue 2August 2016Page: 309-311 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Laurence Klotz More articles by this author Christopher P. Evans More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.006 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.005 |
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".