MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093001752 · doi:10.48083/tabr2149

The Clinical Applications of Tissue Biomarkers in Prostate Cancer

2020· article· en· W3093001752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter E. Lonergan, Samuel L. Washington, Maxwell V. Meng, Renu Eapen

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerProstatectomyMedicineDiseaseCancerProstateProstate-specific antigenStage (stratigraphy)OncologyBioinformaticsPathologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinical course of localized prostate cancer varies widely, from indolent disease unlikely to need treatment to aggressive disease requiring intensive, multimodal therapy. Traditionally, treatment decisions have been based on clinical and pathologic factors, including serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage, and Gleason score. However, these factors have limited ability to describe the underlying tumor biology. Tissue-based genomic tests have emerged as a promising tool to more accurately characterize prostate cancer biology and predict clinical course. Using prostate cancer tissue obtained at pre-treatment biopsy or radical prostatectomy, these tests exploit the expression of specific genes involved in key biological pathways and, as a result, have the potential to aid clinical decision-making. The current review summarizes available data describing the clinical use of 5 commercially available tissue-based genomic assays in a number of clinical scenarios.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207