Prevalence of PSA testing and effect of clinical indications on patterns of PSA testing in a population-based sample of Alberta men.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An age-stratified population-based random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey determined awareness and prevalence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing among Alberta men aged 40 74 years, and assessed the role of indications for PSA testing in explaining patterns of PSA testing. The sample of 1984 men (participation rate 65%) with no history of prostate cancer was divided into three age strata: 40-49, 50-59, and 60-74 years. Awareness of PSA tests was low with fewer than half of the men indicating they had ever heard of PSA tests. The percentage of men who had ever had PSA testing was 4.5%, 13.1%, and 22.2% in the three age strata respectively. PSA testing was strongly associated with having at least one clinical indication for PSA testing (prevalence 21.8%, 26.9%, and 42.2% respectively). PSA testing rates were very low among men who had no clinical indications for PSA testing, suggesting infrequent PSA screening prior to the survey. PSA testing patterns in this population-based sample were consistent with Alberta clinical practice guidelines.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".