Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utilization of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is increasing. Optimal selection criteria for this approach are undefined and questions remain on how best to expand inclusion beyond typical men with very low- or low-risk disease. We sought to review the current experience with AS for men with intermediate-risk featuresMethods:PubMed was queried for all relevant original publications describing outcomes for men with prostate cancer managed with AS. Outcomes for patients with intermediate-risk features as defined by the primary investigators were studied when available and compared with similar risk men undergoing immediate treatment. RESULTS: Cancer-specific survival for men managed initially with AS is similar to results published with immediate radical intervention. A total of five published AS series describe some outcomes for men with intermediate-risk features. Definitions of intermediate risk vary between studies. Men with Gleason 7 disease experience higher rates of clinical progression and are more likely to undergo treatment over time. Intermediate-risk men with Gleason 6 disease have similar outcomes to low-risk men. Men with Gleason 7 disease appear at higher risk for metastatic disease. Novel technologies including imaging and biomarkers may assist with patient selection and disease surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The contemporary experiences of AS for men with intermediate-risk features suggest that although these men are at higher risk for eventual prostate-directed treatment, some are not significantly compromising chances for longer-term cure. Men with more than minimal Gleason pattern 4, however, must be carefully selected and surveyed for early signs of progression and may be at increased risk of metastases. Incorporating information from advanced imaging and biomarker technology will likely individualize future treatment decisions while improving overall surveillance strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it