Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Active surveillance (AS), now the standard of care for most men with favourable-risk prostate cancer, is appealing for selected men with 'favourable' intermediate-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: This is a review of the indications for conservative management in this population, the outcomes reported in prospective series, and the use of molecular biomarkers and imaging to identify optimal candidates. RESULTS: Candidates are those patients who are categorized as having intermediate-risk disease either because of a prostate-specific antigen level between 10 and 20 ng/mL, or by virtue of having Grade Group 2 disease, with a small percentage of Gleason 4 pattern, and a negative magnetic resonance imaging result or negative targeted biopsy of a region of interest. Confirmation with a favourable score on a tissue-based genetic assay can provide further reassurance. A subset of patients with intermediate-risk disease has indolent disease that may benefit from AS; at the same time, some patients with intermediate-risk disease have an aggressive clinical course that requires early definitive therapy. This heterogeneity is not adequately captured with traditional histopathological staging. Clinical, genomic and radiological biomarkers are the key to appropriate risk stratification and patient selection. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of AS make it an appealing option for selected patients with intermediate-risk disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".