Prostate sparing radical cystectomy--not for all, but an option for some.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prostate sparing radical cystectomy (PSRC) is a controversial surgical approach for the treatment of male bladder cancer. The objective of this review is to address some of the concerns related to the potential compromise of oncological outcome compared to radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP)-the gold standard procedure. METHODS: Review of series published in the English literature. Only studies that address PSRC for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder were included. RESULTS: There are only a limited number of studies addressing this approach. All are retrospective, non-comparative and not uniform in terms of patient selection and technique. Long-term follow-up is lacking. The incidence of synchronous and or metachronous prostate cancer and TCC of the prostatic urethra is lower than that found in RCP due to pre-operative screening. The local recurrence rate is 5%- comparable with RCP. Stage for stage, recurrence free and overall survival are compatible. CONCLUSIONS: The experience with PSRC is too limited to allow firm conclusions as to whether the outcome with respect to disease free and disease specific survival is comparable to that achieved by RCP. However, with proper patient screening and selection the short-term results appear promising.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".