Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer: ASCO Endorsement of a Cancer Care Ontario Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In 2017, Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care released the Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline. This guideline included recommendations across a relatively broad clinical spectrum within prostate cancer. Topics addressed ranged from management of osteoporotic fracture risk in nonmetastatic disease to management of men with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS: The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO wholly endorses the Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: The ASCO Expert Panel endorses all the original guideline recommendations as written and offers a series of discussion points to guide practice for clinicians as they manage bone-related risks within this patient population.
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 | 0.031 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".