Differences between rural and urban prostate cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the residency status (rural area [RA] vs urban clusters [UC] vs urban areas [UA]) affects stage and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in contemporary newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) patients of all stages, regardless of treatment. METHODS: Newly diagnosed PCa patients with available residency status were abstracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2016). Propensity-score (PS) matching, cumulative incidence plots, multivariate competing-risks regression (CRR) models were used. RESULTS: Of 531,468 PCa patients of all stages, 6653 (1.3%) resided in RA, 50,932 (9.6%) in UC and 473,883 (89.2%) in UA. No statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in stage at presentation or CSM were recorded. Conversely, 10-year other cause-mortality (OCM) rates were 27.2% vs 23.7% vs 18.9% (p < 0.001) in RA vs UC vs UA patients, respectively. In CRR models, RA (subhazard ratio [SHR] 1.38; p < 0.001) and UC (SHR 1.18; p < 0.001) were independent predictors for higher OCM relative to UA. These differences remained statistically significant in fully PS-adjusted multivariate CRR models. CONCLUSION: RA, and to a lesser extent UC, PCa patients are at higher risk of OCM than UA patients. Higher OCM may indicate shorter life expectancy and should be considered in treatment decision making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".