Diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) prior to first prostate biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) test before performing the first biopsy compared with prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, reference lists, specialized journals in urology and cancer, and unpublished literature. The population was adults with suspected PCa, and the intervention was the measurement of PCA3 in urine samples for the diagnosis of PCa. The quality of studies was evaluated with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. The operative characteristics were determined, and a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Nine studies of diagnostic tests were included based on a cutoff value of 35. The following overall values were obtained: the sensitivity was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.75); specificity was 0.65 (95% CI 0.553-0.733); the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 4.244 (95% CI 3.487-5.166); and the area under the curve was 0.734 (95% CI 0.674-0.805), with a heterogeneity of 0%. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary PCA3 has an acceptable diagnostic accuracy, aids in the study of patients with suspected PCa, and can be used as a guide for directing the performance of the first prostate biopsy and decreasing unnecessary biopsies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".