Discontinuous unilateral involvement of 12 part core biopsies by adenocarcinoma predicts bilateral involvement of subsequent radical prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At our institution, percent tumor burden in prostate core biopsies is quantified using variations of one of two methods. Measurement by the Aggregate method reports only adenocarcinoma and omits intervening stroma and benign prostatic glands while the Discontinuous method includes the intervening stroma and benign glands between distinct foci of adenocarcinoma. In this study, we selected cases with 12-part core biopsies that were followed by a radical prostatectomy within two years. Interestingly, we found that when adenocarcinoma involved prostate 12-part core biopsies and subsequent resection unilaterally, there is no significant difference in absolute percentage of tumor using either measuring method (P = 0.4). In contrast, when adenocarcinoma involved the biopsies unilaterally and subsequent prostatectomy bilaterally, the two measurement methods had a statistically significant difference in percentage scores (P = 0.002). In the study cohort, other factors including Gleason score (P = 0.88) and total number of adenocarcinoma-involved cores (P = 0.27) did not introduce any significant correlation with bilateral involvement. In this study, we found that biopsies that discontinuously and unilaterally involve half of a prostate are much more likely to involve both lobes than those that are unilateral and present in nodular aggregates.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".