Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their paper, Taussky et al compare the rates of biochemical recurrence and salvage treatment between patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with permanent seed prostate brachytherapy or radical prostatectomy from 2005–2011. The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence or salvage therapy at 48 +/− 4 months after localized therapy. Younger patients, as well as those with higher-volume disease (higher initial prostate-specific antigen [PSA] and percentage of positive biopsies) were more likely to develop a biochemical recurrence. However, the central finding in this study was that there was no difference in the biochemical recurrence rate after radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy, which agrees with earlier publications. A recent systematic review by Wolff et al of limited, randomized data demonstrated no significant difference in biochemical progression-free survival in patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with brachytherapy or radical prostatectomy.1 Patients treated with brachytherapy, however, reported better preservation of sexual function, but worse short-term (<5 years) urinary function.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".