MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101014333 · doi:10.1111/bju.15299

Management of patients who opt for radical prostatectomy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic: an international accelerated consensus statement

2020· article· en· W3101014333 on OpenAlexaff
Zafer Tandoğdu, Justin Collins, Greg Shaw, Jennifer Rohn, Béla Köves, Ashwin Sachdeva, Ahmed Ghazi, Alexander Haese, Alexandre Mottrie, Anup Kumar, Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman, Ashutosh Tewari, Ben Challacombe, Bernardo Rocco, Camilo Giedelman, Christian von Wagner, Craig Rogers, Declan G. Murphy, Pushkar' DIu, James Porter, Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam, Markus Graefen, Marcelo A. Orvieto, Márcio Covas Moschovas, Oscar Schatloff, Peter Wiklund, Rafael F. Coelho, R. Valero, Theo M. de Reijke, Thomas E. Ahlering, Travis Rogers, Henk G. van der Poel, Vipul Patel, Walter Artibani, Florian Wagenlehner, Kris Maes, Koon Ho Rha, Senthil Nathan, Truls E. Bjerklund Johansen, Peter M. Hawkey, John D. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersRosetrees TrustAcademy of Medical SciencesNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerPandemicProstatectomyDiseaseIntensive care medicineManagement of prostate cancerCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CancerInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused delays in definitive treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Beyond the immediate delay a backlog for future patients is expected. The objective of this work is to develop guidance on criteria for prioritisation of surgery and reconfiguring management pathways for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer who opt for surgical treatment. A second aim was to identify the infection prevention and control (IPC) measures to achieve a low likelihood of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hazard if radical prostatectomy (RP) was to be carried out during the outbreak and whilst the disease is endemic. METHODS: We conducted an accelerated consensus process and systematic review of the evidence on COVID-19 and reviewed international guidance on prostate cancer. These were presented to an international prostate cancer expert panel (n = 34) through an online meeting. The consensus process underwent three rounds of survey in total. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from the previous rounds. The Consensus opinion was defined as ≥80% agreement and this was used to reconfigure the prostate cancer pathways. RESULTS: Evidence on the delayed management of patients with prostate cancer is scarce. There was 100% agreement that prostate cancer pathways should be reconfigured and measures developed to prevent nosocomial COVID-19 for patients treated surgically. Consensus was reached on prioritisation criteria of patients for surgery and management pathways for those who have delayed treatment. IPC measures to achieve a low likelihood of nosocomial COVID-19 were coined as 'COVID-19 cold' sites. CONCLUSION: Reconfiguring management pathways for patients with prostate cancer is recommended if significant delay (>3-6 months) in surgical management is unavoidable. The mapped pathways provide guidance for such patients. The IPC processes proposed provide a framework for providing RP within an environment with low COVID-19 risk during the outbreak or when the disease remains endemic. The broader concepts could be adapted to other indications beyond prostate cancer surgery.

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)0.161
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.222
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1610.222
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207