De klinische relevantie van cribriforme en intraductale prostaatkanker in diagnostische naaldbiopten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cribriforme en intraductale groei zijn beide geassocieerd met een ongunstige prognose na radicale prostatectomie. In dit onderzoek werden alle patiënten van de eerste screeningsronde van de European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) met prostaatkanker geïncludeerd. Alle uit deze screeningsronde beschikbare coupes werden gereviseerd en gescoord op aanwezigheid van cribriforme en/of intraductale groei. Uitkomstmaten waren biochemisch recidief en ziektespecifieke overleving. In totaal hadden 486 patiënten Gleason-score (GS) 6 (47 %) en 545 GS ≥7 (53 %). De ziektespecifieke en biochemisch-recidiefvrije overleving van CR/IDC−-GS3+4-patiënten verschilden niet van die van GS6-patiënten, terwijl die van CR/IDC+-GS3+4-patiënten wel significant verschillend waren. De conclusie luidt dat de aanwezigheid van cribriforme en intraductale groei bij prostaatkanker een sterke klinische prognostische marker is met veel potentie. Het gebruik van deze variabele bij klinische beslisvorming zou een bijdrage kunnen leveren aan het reduceren van overbehandeling bij prostaatkanker.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".