Practice patterns of Canadian urologists in the management of stage I testicular seminoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the practice patterns of Canadian urologists in the management of stage I testicular seminoma. METHODS: A survey was conducted with a three-page questionnaire among Canadian urologists between July and November 2002. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 48%. The total number of completed and partially completed questionnaires was 198 and 212, respectively. Ninety-four responders described their practice as university-affiliated teaching centre, while 118 reported community-based or private practice. All ordered CT abdomen/pelvis with either chest x-ray or CT scan of chest for staging investigation. Only 1% would order a lymphangiogram. About one third would not offer surveillance as a management option for stage I testicular seminoma. When asked to rank, in order of preference, three management options (surveillance, adjuvant radiotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy) under four different clinical scenarios varying in perceived relapse risk and the presence/absence of fertility preservation concern, the majority selected adjuvant radiotherapy as the treatment of choice for a patient with high relapse risk or no fertility concern. When a patient had desire to preserve fertility as well as low relapse risk, surveillance was chosen as the preferred management strategy. There was no significant response difference between academic and community urologists. CONCLUSION: There was some variation among Canadian urologists in the management of stage I testicular seminoma. The issue of fertility preservation and perceived relapse risk were important factors influencing management decisions. There was no significant difference between academic and community-based urologists with respect to patient volume and management approaches.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".