MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234511599 · doi:10.5858/2006-130-1752c-ir

In Reply

2006· article· en· W4234511599 on OpenAlexaff
Kiril Trpkov

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstatectomyMedicineProstate cancerStage (stratigraphy)UrologyIncidence (geometry)Prostate-specific antigenDiseaseGeneral surgeryCancerWatchful waitingProstateGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Reply.—We thank you for your interest in our study dealing with the problem of no residual cancer (“vanishing cancer”) on radical prostatectomy after 10-core biopsy.1 Indeed, you confirm that the incidence of these cases is creeping up, despite their relatively low number in current practice. You postulate that the change in current urology practice toward surgically treating more patients with organ-confined disease than in the past has also contributed to the increase of low-volume or no residual cancer cases on prostatectomy. While some urologists may be more selective now than previously with patients who are treated with prostatectomy, we believe that this simply reflects urologists' adjustment to current clinical practice that has been altered by other factors. It is well documented that the patients currently treated with radical prostatectomy are younger and have a lower incidence of advanced-stage disease and less nodal and seminal vesicle involvement than 2 decades ago.2 Epstein3 has found that 26% to 29% of the radical prostatectomies performed at The Johns Hopkins Hospital contained potentially insignificant cancers. These trends highlight that we are detecting prostate cancer at an earlier stage. This shift in the stage of detected disease has resulted from more vigilant testing and screening for serum prostate-specific antigen and increased public awareness during the last 15 years.Additionally, some investigators have recently argued in favor of lowering the prostate-specific antigen cutoff from 4.0 to 2.5 ng/mL, particularly in younger men, which may have also contributed to the growing biopsy lists in our clinics.4 After 2000, extended prostate biopsies with 8, 10, or more biopsy cores (vs 6, which had been routine during the 1990s) have become the norm in many institutions, including ours. The extended biopsy sampling strategies (from 6–12 cores) have increased the overall detection rates and have likely resulted in detection of cancer at an earlier stage.5 Our study documented higher incidence of vanishing cancer after 10-core biopsy than previously reported for studies using 6-core biopsies. However, it is still controversial whether the increased biopsy strategies have independently increased the current rates of clinically insignificant and vanishing cancers.In summary, we believe that the trend of finding no cancer on prostatectomy has been driven not by the selection of the patient population for surgery but by the widespread prostate-specific antigen testing that has resulted in disease stage-shift during the last 2 decades.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0230.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.039

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207