<p>Changes in risk-group stratification of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at the Southern Alberta Institute of Urology over time</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men, but overall mortality rates remain low, due to the preponderance of low-risk disease. Over the last decade, there has been a shift toward more conservative management in low-risk prostate cancer, in order to minimize unnecessary intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the number of low-risk radical prostatectomies (RPs) being performed at the Southern Alberta Institute of Urology over a 10-year period. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent RP from 2005 to 2014 at our institution. Patients were stratified by D'Amico risk classification and grade group based on 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-bx) results. RP findings are reported from February 2005 to October 2014 to describe concordance between TRUS-bx and RPs. Basic descriptive analyses were used for this study. RESULTS: Over the study period, 2,310 RPs were performed in our institution. Overall, 35.2% of these were performed on men with low-risk prostate cancer. From 2005 to 2014, the proportion of RPs performed for low-risk prostate cancer dropped from 54.0% to 8.9%, and 49.8% of patients who underwent RP for low-risk disease experienced pathologic upgrading, though only 3.8% were upgraded to grade group 3 or greater. Other adverse pathological findings were uniformly low among the low-risk group. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients undergoing RP at our center for low-risk prostate cancer decreased significantly over the 10 years evaluated in this study, reflecting current global trends toward active surveillance in the management of low-risk prostate cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".