Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in TURP specimens and subsequent prostate cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) is considered as a precursor lesion for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Most data supporting this relationship comes from the short-term follow-up of patients with repeated biopsies. We report a study in which patients were followed-up for 11 years to assess the relationships between the presence of high grade PIN, low grade PIN, and atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH) and the subsequent occurrence of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 601 men treated by TURP in 1990-1993, prostate specimens were reviewed to assess the presence of high grade PIN, low grade PIN, and AAH. Incidental carcinoma was observed in 67 men. Follow-up of the 534 men without incidental prostate cancer was conducted until December 2003 and 24 new prostate cancers were diagnosed. Multivariate regression models were used to assess the relationships between PIN and AAH and prostate cancer on both cross-sectional and prospective data. RESULTS: High grade PIN (odds ratio (OR) = 6.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.28-11.58), low grade PIN (OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 1.45-6.46), and AAH (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.00-4.29) were significantly associated with incidental prostate cancer. In the prospective study, only high grade PIN was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of prostate cancer: hazard ratio = 3.12, 95% CI: 1.15-8.49. CONCLUSION: Although high grade PIN, low grade PIN, and AAH were all associated with incidental prostate cancer, the long-term prospective study showed that only high grade PIN was a significant determinant of the subsequent occurrence of prostate cancer.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".