International regional working groups on prostate cancer: results of consensus development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: At the first Global Urologic Oncology Congress--which was held in conjunction with the SIU meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii, on October 2-3, 2004--a total of 250 urologists from nine regions throughout the world participated in working groups to develop consensus statements about the management of prostate cancer patients. The focus was on two areas of prostate cancer: first, screening and detection--including when to do a biopsy, and how to manage low-risk patients--and second, management of high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Overall, there is marked global diversity of beliefs about optimal screening and management of patients with low- or high-risk localized prostate cancer. This diversity likely reflects regional differences in epidemiologic factors, resources, and treatment patterns. Participating in the process of trying to develop international practice consensus gives urologists the opportunity to broaden their perspective about handling common clinical scenarios.
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 | 0.245 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".