MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127383358 · doi:10.26443/mjm.v2i2.564

Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA): The Historical Perspective

2020· article· en· W3127383358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T. Ming Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineProstate-specific antigenCancerProstatic acid phosphataseAntigenProstateOncologyInternal medicineGynecologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1970, shortly after joining Roswell Park Memorial Institute, the New York State institute for the study of malignant diseases, the author initiated investigations on the use of tumor cell products for diagnosis and therapy of cancer. Immunochemical approaches were used primarily to differentiate quantitatively or qualitatively normal cells from tumor cells. Prostate cancer was a major area of endeavor, with the goal to identify and characterize prostate tumor specific and associated antigens, and eventually to develop a simple but reliable blood test for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer research had not received much attention at the time this work was begun. The early studies focused upon, among others, prostatic acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, and new prostate tumor markers. By the mid 1970s, three able investigators--Dr. Ching-Li Lee, Dr. Carl S. Killian, and Dr. Ming C. Wang--had joined the prostate cancer research team, and were invited to take charge of these three research projects, respectively.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of MedicineSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207