Is there a correlation between the aggressiveness of chronic asymptomatic prostatitis NIH category IV and the Gleason score in patients with prostate cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the correlation between the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades and the aggressiveness grades of prostate inflammation in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients with chronic asymptomatic prostatitis National Institiutes of Health (NIH) category IV (CAPNIHIV). METHODS: The study comprised 357 consecutive patients with prostate cancer in whom a cancer diagnosis had been made via a prostate needle biopsy. Histological sections of the prostate biopsy specimens of the patients were reviewed and scored. Prostatic inflammation was scored using the aggressiveness grade of inflammation. The associations between the ISUP grades and the aggressiveness grades of inflammation were analyzed using logistic regression. The limitations of the study were its retrospective design and the limited number of cases. RESULTS: In 110 (31%) patients, CAPNIHIV was detected: 56 (51%) patients had a grade 0 aggressiveness score, 34 (31%) patients had a grade 1 aggressiveness score, and 20 (18%) patients had a grade 2 aggressiveness score. The patients who had prostatic inflammation had 1.65 times (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.61) greater likelihood of a high ISUP grade (grade ≥3) compared with the patients who did not have prostatic inflammation. The association between the ISUP grade and the aggressiveness grade of inflammation was more pronounced for a grade 2 aggressiveness score (n= 20; odds ratio 2.97; 95% CI 1.14-7.71). CONCLUSIONS: In prostate cancer patients with CAPNIHIV, there was a positive correlation between the inflammation aggressiveness grade and the ISUP grade. The aggressiveness of intraprostatic inflammation may be an important morphological factor affecting the Gleason score.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".