MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2952988404

Active surveillance in intermediate risk prostate cancer.

2019· article· en· W2952988404 on OpenAlexaff
Thenappan Chandrasekar, Jaime O. Herrera‐Cáceres, Laurence Klotz

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicinePopulationDiseaseCancerOncologyRisk assessmentInternal medicineIntensive care medicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Active Surveillance (AS) has become an established treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), demonstrating superior functional outcomes and excellent oncologic outcomes.As such, it has been appealing to extend AS to patients with intermediate risk PCa. We provide a review of the current experience with AS in the intermediate-risk PCa population. METHODS: Risk stratification is the key to treatment success. Many clinical factors (age, percent Gleason 4, PSA density, race/ethnicity, and genetic predisposition) and genomic markers have proven prognostic value in the AS population. We performed a systematic review of the currently available data (randomized trials and prospective cohort studies) to establish the status of AS in the intermediate risk patient population. RESULTS: Our ability to predict the natural history of intermediate risk prostate cancer is imperfect. While the benefits of AS make it an appealing option for men with intermediate risk disease, the published experience todate demonstrates that AS for all men with intermediate risk disease leads to higher rates of metastatic disease and loss of the opportunity for cure. These same studiesalso demonstrate that a subset of patients with intermediate risk disease have indolent disease that may benefit from AS. This heterogeneity is not adequately captured with traditional histopathologic staging. Clinical, genomic, and radiologic biomarkers play a key role in appropriate risk stratification and patient selection. The optimal use of these biomarkers in the intermediate riskpatient is currently the subject of intense evaluation. CONCLUSION: Active surveillance for men at the favorable end of intermediate risk prostate cancer is an appealing alternative to radical therapy, but carries a modest but increased risk of metastatic disease compared to low risk cancer. Many biomarkers are currently being evaluated to enhance precise risk stratification of this important subgroup of patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→