Evaluation of Concordance between Gleason Scores of Tansrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Samples in Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we investigated the concordance between Gleason scores of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer via transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy and treated with radical prostatectomy in our clinic. Material and Method: 115 patients were included in our study treated with radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer between the dates of November 2011 and December 2014. Data of these patients are reviewed retrospectively. Results: The average age of the patients was 61.8 ± 6.8 (43-76) years. The average body mass index of these patients were (BMI) 26.7 ± 3.34 (19.3 - 35.3) kg/m². Average PSA value was 6.6 ± 10.1 (1.4 - 80) ng/ml. Gleason scores of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy and radical prostatectomy were observed concordant in 74 (64.3%) of 115 patients, while 41 (35.6%) were not concordant. Gleason score was decreased by 1 grade for 8.6% (10 patients) of patients, it was increased by 1 for 26.0% (30 patients) of patients and for 0.8% (1 patient) it was increased by 3. Discussion: These findings indicate indicate that Gleason scores of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy and prostatectomy specimens may be discordant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".