MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793895106 · doi:10.1007/s40336-018-0270-2

PSMA diagnostics and treatments of prostate cancer become mature

2018· editorial· en· W2793895106 on OpenAlexaff
Finn Edler von Eyben, G. Baumann, Richard P. Baum

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Translational Imaging · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstatectomySalvage therapyRadiation therapyProstate-specific antigenBiochemical recurrenceProstateCancerOncologyExternal beam radiotherapyUrologyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death for men in many parts of the world. Radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) are effective treatment of localized prostate cancer but many patients recur with raising levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Localized salvage therapies for suspected local failure such as salvage EBRT after RP are most effective during early PSA recurrence. In a Danish national cohort study, salvage EBRT for patients with PSA recurrence after RP undertaken without restaging imaging was effective for approximately half of the patients [ 1 ]. Improving on these results requires identification of men with truly localized or oligometastatic recurrence. However, restaging with conventional imaging such as CT and bone scans has limitations. For example, among patients with PSA recurrence after RP, those with a rising PSA < 10 µg/L rarely have positive bone scans. This is problematic because guidelines recommend that patients with PSA recurrence after RP should undergo salvage radiotherapy, while PSA is < 0.5 µg/L [ 2 ]. Thus, bone scans cannot guide salvage treatment for most patients with early-phase PSA recurrence after RP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Translational ImagingSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207