MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200332445 · doi:10.3390/cancers13246243

Identification of Morphologic Criteria Associated with Biochemical Recurrence in Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate

2021· article· en· W4200332445 on OpenAlexafffund
Mame-Kany Diop, Roula Albadine, André Kougioumoutzakis, Nathalie Delvoye, Hélène Hovington, Alain Bergeron, Yves Fradet, Fred Saad, Dominique Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéInstitut Du Cancer de MontréalCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsBiochemical recurrenceMedicineProstatectomyUrologyProstate cancerHazard ratiobreakpoint cluster regionCarcinomaConfidence intervalProstateInternal medicineCohortOncologyPathologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is an aggressive subtype of prostate cancer strongly associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, approximately 40% of men with IDC-P remain BCR-free five years after radical prostatectomy. In this retrospective multicenter study, we aimed to identify histologic criteria associated with BCR for IDC-P lesions. A total of 108 first-line radical prostatectomy specimens were reviewed. In our test cohort (n = 39), presence of larger duct size (>573 µm in diameter), cells with irregular nuclear contours (CINC) (≥5 CINC in two distinct high-power fields), high mitotic score (>1.81 mitoses/mm2), blood vessels, and comedonecrosis were associated with early BCR (<18 months) (p < 0.05). In our validation cohort (n = 69), the presence of CINC or blood vessels was independently associated with an increased risk of BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09–4.96, p = 0.029). When combining the criteria, the presence of any CINC, blood vessels, high mitotic score, or comedonecrosis showed a stronger association with BCR (HR 2.74, 95% CI 1.21–6.19, p = 0.015). Our results suggest that IDC-P can be classified as low versus high-risk of BCR. The defined morphologic criteria can be easily assessed and should be integrated for clinical application following validation in larger cohorts.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207