Interests in the use of Rapid Prostate Antigen Screening Test in the North-Cameroon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The number of prostate cancer detected late because of the lack of means of investigation allowing a proximity screening, the poverty which characterize north are the two main elements which led us to lead this study which had for objective to shown the value of using rapid PSA screening tests. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional analytical study in the city of Ngaoundere and Garoua for a period of 5 months. Results: A total of 220 PSA level assays were performed over the 5-month period of our study with variations between the two selected centers. Of 30 samples used to study the sensitivity of rapid PSA screening tests, 22 were positive and 8 negative. The concordance rate for the positive values of the rapid test strip test versus the assay was 100%. The concordance of negative values was 87.5%. In addition, in a sample of 41 patients, PSA tests were performed in 30 patients, or 73.17%, and diagnosed prostate cancer in 69.23% of diagnosed cancer cases. Conclusion: Rapid PSA screening tests are good tools for diagnosing prostate cancer when combined with other tools such as digital rectal examination and ultrasound.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".