MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MP22-14 DEFINITIVE THERAPY FOR MEN WITH NEWLY-DIAGNOSED OLIGOMETASTATIC PROSTATE CANCER: INITIAL SURGICAL OUTCOMES FROM A PHASE II STUDY

2019· article· en· W2942238546 on OpenAlexaff
Mohit Gupta, Arnav Srivastava, Hiten Patel, Diane K. Reyes, Bruce J. Trock, Phuoc T. Tran, Mohamed Allaf, Trinity J. Bivalacqua, Herbert Carter, Ashley E. Ross, Alan W. Partin, Edward M. Schaeffer, Kenneth J. Pienta, Christian P. Pavlovich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsProstate Cancer Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerCancerProstateGeneral surgeryOncologySurgeryGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QoL (WHOQOL-BREF), perception of disease (B-IPQ), symptoms of the disease (QLQ-PR25) and perception of cohesion within the patient-partner relationship (dyadic adjustment, DAS-16).The results are presented as mean Æ standard deviation.The final analysis included 492 patients (74.2 years Æ 8.1), including 470 with a partner evaluation (70.5 Æ 9.0 years).RESULTS: Patient QoL remained mostly stable (0 Æ21.2), while patients' satisfaction with their health improved significantly (6.3 Æ 24.8, p <0.001).The scores of physical (-1.4 Æ 14.5), psychological (-2.3 Æ 13.3) and social (-3.2 Æ 15.9) health were significantly degraded during the study.QoL was significantly deteriorated in patients who had good cohesion in the couple (-4.1Æ19.8)versus medium (2.8Æ19.8)or poor (1.6Æ22.5).A good cohesion in the couple seemed overall an unfavorable factor for the evolution of the scores of QoL, of health and of perception of environment.Associated factors in multivariate analysis with improvement in QoL were: initial presence of symptoms (OR [95% CI]: 3.0 [1.46, 6.17]) and initial low level (2.04 [1.12, 3.72]) or absence of sexual activity (2.23 [1.11, 4.50]).CONCLUSIONS: The men who benefited the most from hormone therapy in terms of QoL were those who suffered from symptoms and those who had no sexual activity at baseline.The influence of the cohesion within the couple on the evolution of the QoL is not confirmed in multivariate analysis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207