Evaluating changes in stage I seminoma management: a single institution review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Historically adjuvant radiotherapy has been routinely recommended for stage I seminoma patients but surveillance has become an increasingly popular option over the last decade. We therefore decided to review the approach currently used by the radiation oncologists at our center. METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire evaluating physician opinions about treatment options for stage I seminoma patients was developed at the Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Centre (OHRCC). It was sent to all the radiation oncologists at OHRCC treating genitor-urinary (GU) malignancies for self-completion. RESULTS: All the GU radiation oncologists completed the survey for a response rate of 100% (7/7). Most (71%) have been treating GU malignancies for at least 5 years with the median being 9 years. At present, all consider surveillance and adjuvant radiotherapy as standard treatment options for stage I seminoma patients, and recommend these to patients. They give patients information about the treatment options but also give their personal recommendations as well. Most have been routinely discussing surveillance as an option since the late 1990's. Clinical data from the OHRCC confirms that there has been a significant increase in the proportion of stage I seminoma patients being managed by surveillance over the past 15 years. Currently almost half of patients are choosing surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a fairly uniform approach towards the management of stage I seminoma patients at the OHRCC. Radiation oncologists are now routinely offering both surveillance and adjuvant radiotherapy as reasonable option for these patients, and this is consistent with the recently published literature on this topic.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".