A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer constitutes a huge burden on societies in countries with any level of economic development. Prostate cancer is the first most diagnosed cancer of men in developed countries and the forth one in developing countries in terms of incidence rate. It is also the third incident cancer of men in Iran along with a prevalence of about 10,000 cases. Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is a severe stage of the disease with a number of newly discovered treatment options. These therapeutic alternatives including abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, immunotherapy with sipuleucel-T, radiopharmaceuticals and bone-targeted therapies (zoledronic acid, denosumab) along with docetaxel have made the decision making process complex and challenging for clinicians. In addition to the challenges of selecting the best-fit treatment, high costs of new pharmaceuticals and technologies necessitates the health policy-makers to develop practice guidelines in adaptation with local resources and limitations. The aim of this paper is to review the clinical guidelines for the management of CRPC. For better comprehension of guideline recommendations, the main clinical trials on new treatments were also identified. The efficacy and safety outcomes including but not limited to overall survival, progression free survival, quality of life and adverse effects were summarized. The guidelines of American Urological Association (AUA), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), European Association of Urology (EUA), Spanish Oncology Genitourinary Group (SOGG), Asian Oncology Summit, Saudi Oncology Society-Saudi Urology Association combined guideline, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Canadian Urological Association-Canadian Urologic Oncology Group (CUA-CUOG) were covered in this paper.
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 | 0.016 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".