MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044267660 · doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000807

An up-to-date catalogue of urinary markers for the management of prostate cancer

2020· article· en· W3044267660 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Brönimann, Benjamin Pradère, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Nicolai Huebner, Alberto Briganti, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerPCA3Urinary systemInternal medicineOncologyBiomarkerProstateManagement of prostate cancerDiseaseBiopsyProstate biopsyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Poor specificity and sensitivity of total PSA often results in over and sometimes underdetection/treatment. Therefore, more specific and sensitive biomarkers for the detection and monitoring especially of clinically significant PCa as well as treatment-specific markers are much sought after. In this field, urine has emerged as a promising noninvasive source of biomarkers. RECENT FINDINGS: RNA-based biomarkers are the most extensively studied type of urinary nucleic acids. ERG-Score/MiPS (Mi-Prostate Score) and SelectMDx might be considered as additional parameters together with clinical and imaging modalities to decrease unnecessary biopsies. miR Sentinel Tests could make it possible to accurately detect the presence of cancer and to distinguish low-grade from high-grade disease. In men with previous negative biopsies, PCA3 may suggest the need to repeat biopsy. SUMMARY: The definitive role of these markers and their clinical benefit needs future validation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207