Canadian Urological Association recommendations on prostate cancer screening and early diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed non-cutaneous malignancy among Canadian men and is the third leading cause of cancer-related death. In 2016, an estimated 21 600 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 4000 men died from the disease;1 however, prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease with a clinical course ranging from indolent to life-threatening. Identifying and treating men with clinically significant prostate cancer while avoiding the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of indolent disease remains a significant challenge. Several professional associations have developed guidelines on prostate cancer screening and early diagnosis, but there are conflicting recommendations on how best to approach these issues. With recent updates from several large, randomized, prospective trials, as well as the emergence of several new diagnostic tests, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) has developed these evidence-based recommendations to guide clinicians on prostate cancer screening and early diagnosis for Canadian men. The aim of these recommendations is to provide guidance on the current best prostate cancer screening and early diagnosis practices and to provide information on new and emerging diagnostic modalities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.008 |
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".