Risk prediction-modeling approach to identify best predictive parameters for urethral strictures after prostate brachytherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
87 Background: Urethral strictures (US) are a rare complication of prostate brachytherapy (BXT), with prior studies showing radiation dose to the bulbomembranous urethra is associated with stricture formation. This retrospective case-control study explored clinical and dosimetric parameters associated with the development of BXT-related urethral strictures. Methods: A cohort of 34 patients developed urethral strictures after BXT at our institution for the period of 2008-2014. Each case was matched with two controls (68 controls) that had not developed a US according to similar baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), planned prostate volume, post-implant prostate V150, and post-implant prostate D90 dosimetry parameters. US development was compared with clinical (i.e. age, IPSS, etc) and dosimetric (i.e. prostate, urethra, urethra segments) variables. Statistical modeling for risk prediction was applied, which included adjusted R2, Mallows’ C Selection (Cp), Schwartz’s information criterion (BIC), forward selection (FS), and backward selection (BS) to identify the parameters with prediction ability of toxicity. CV analysis was performed to select the best subset selection on the full data set in order to obtain the most predictive parameter selection. Results: The results show that the R2statistic increases from 6% (only one) to 33 %, (all of the parameters included). The table demonstrates minimum best-fit parameters in the different models. (See table.) CV with minimum standard error (MSE) identified a model with 5 parameters that included age, baseline IPSS, UD30, UD5, and U5mm V200Apex shows best prediction ability for US. Conclusions: This modeling approach, which is novel in BXT, helped to identify a combination of parameters with some predictive ability of radiation toxicity. Further evaluation is required to validation. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".