Prostate cancer radiotherapy 2002: the way forward.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2000, the GU Radiation Oncologists of Canada had their first meeting, "Controversies in prostate cancer radiotherapy: consensus development". The success of this meeting prompted a second meeting, held in December 2002 to discuss "The Way Forward" in prostate radiotherapy. Radiation oncologists from across Canada were brought together and integrated with key opinion leaders in prostate cancer treatment from throughout North America. The group debated current controversies including: intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), external beam hypofractionation, high dose-rate brachytherapy, and hormone therapy in the management of prostate cancer. The meeting also sought to identify and prioritize clinical trial opportunities and to highlight steps required to achieve these research goals. In summary, advances involving IMRT have enabled the use of higher radiation doses without increasing morbidity. With renewed interest in hypofractionated radiation schedules, the value of hypofractionation using IMRT was discussed and initial results from ongoing clinical trials were presented. The emerging role for high dose-rate brachytherapy in higher risk patients was also discussed. Based on existing preliminary evidence the group expressed enthusiasm for further investigation of the role for brachytherapy in intermediate to high-risk patients. Despite significant advances in radiotherapy, hormone therapy continues to play an important role in prostate cancer treatment for patients with intermediate and high-risk disease. Although evidence supports the effectiveness of hormone therapy, the optimal timing, and duration of hormonal treatment are unclear. Results from ongoing clinical trials will provide insight into these questions and will assist in the design of future clinical trials.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.023 |
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".