MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809446586 · doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000526

Conditional risk of relapse in patients with germ cell testicular tumors

2018· review· en· W2809446586 on OpenAlexaff
Hanan Goldberg, Madhur Nayan, Robert J. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGerm cell tumorsOncologyGerm cellTesticular Germ Cell TumorTesticular cancerInternal medicineGynecologyCancerChemotherapyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Germ cell testicular tumors (GCTTs) are the most common malignancy in young men, and the incidence is increasing worldwide. Most patients present with clinical stage I (CS1) disease, and active surveillance is being increasingly adopted as the preferred initial treatment modality. In this review, we describe the concept of conditional risk of relapse (CRR), an evolving risk estimate for CS1 GCTT patients on active surveillance who have not relapsed. RECENT FINDINGS: At diagnosis, patients are often counseled about their initial risk of relapse based on known risk factors present at diagnosis. However, the risk estimate becomes less informative in patients who have survived a period of time without experiencing relapse. CRR, on the other contrary, provides specific information on a patient's evolving risk of relapse over time. This dynamic estimate can be used to tailor surveillance protocols based on future risk of relapse within risk subgroups. SUMMARY: Implementation of CRR in patients on active surveillance can reduce the burden of follow-up, the number of physician visits and tests, and lower costs for the healthcare system. Finally, CRR estimates provide patients with a meaningful, evolving risk estimate, and may help reassure patients and reduce potential anxiety while continuing active surveillance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in UrologySame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207