Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With increased longevity in the population, urologists treat and will treat more and more often senior patients with bladder cancer (BC).The aim of the current study was to analyze the impact of patient's age on survival after radical cystectomy (RC).Methods: Two ethics approved RC databases including consecutive muscle invasive BC patients undergoing radical cystectomy at UHN, Toronto, Canada (1992-2008) and University of Turku, Turku, Finland (1986-2005) were included.Six hundred thirty five patients who underwent RC were analyzed.Patients were separated according to their age into four groups and compared for their characteristics, recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OAS).Results: Patients age and gender distribution is presented in Table 1.An ileal conduit was the preferred diversion type for all patients >80 years .Although elderly patients had worse ASA scores (p<0.0001),most of the patients undergoing RC were in a good ASA group.No statistical difference between age groups was observed in terms of RFS and DSS (p=0.59 and 0.23) (Fig. 1), although OAS was statistically different (p<0.0001).Conclusions: Although RC is an operation with significant morbidity, it is a viable treatment strategy for patients with a good health status irrespective of their age.Senior patients (>80 years) should not be denied RC if they are deemed fit solely based on age criteria.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.639 | 0.351 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".