MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781950910 · doi:10.21037/tau.2017.12.20

Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: an update to the never-ending debate

2018· letter· en· W2781950910 on OpenAlexaff
Thenappan Chandrasekar, Derya Tilki

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Andrology and Urology · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstatectomyProstate cancerMedicineRadical retropubic prostatectomyPerioperativeUrologyGovernment (linguistics)General surgeryCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radical prostatectomy (RP) remains a standard of care surgical management for localized prostate cancer (PCa). However, with the introduction of robotic-assisted techniques, the surgical management of PCa has changed drastically. With uptake varying by country, depending on cost, insurance coverage, government healthcare approval, and patient preference, there have been frequent reports assessing its safety, perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes and oncologic outcomes, as compared to traditional open radical retropubic prostatectomy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Andrology and UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207