Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus radical cystectomy versus radical cystectomy alone in clinical T2 bladder cancer without hydronephrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before radical cystectomy (RC) in a retrospective multicentre cohort of patients with cT2N0M0 bladder cancer (BCa) without preoperative hydronephrosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a propensity-based analysis of 619 patients. Of these, 316 were treated with NAC followed by RC and 303 with upfront RC. After multiple imputations, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to account for potential selection bias. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of NAC on pathological complete response and downstaging at RC, while IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were built to evaluate the impact of NAC on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: After IPTW-adjusted analysis, standardised differences between groups were <15%. A complete response (pT0N0) at final pathology was achieved in 94 (30%) patients receiving NAC and nine (3%) undergoing upfront RC. Downstaging to non-muscle-invasive disease (
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".