Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: PSA screening has resulted in a significant increase in the diagnosis of low risk prostate adenocarcinoma.Treating these cancers would cause significant morbidity with radical treatment.Active surveillance (AS) is an alternative to radical treatment for these cancers and to monitor them with the intent to treat radically once the cancer progresses.Methods: In this retrospective study, patients treated at the Manitoba Prostate Cancer with an active diagnosis of Prostate Adenocarcinoma with Gleason ≤3+4, multiple biopsies, ≤t2b (with one exception), and PSA <20 (two exceptions) were analyzed for changes in PSA, PSA doubling time, PSA density, Prostate volume changes, triggers for biopsy, triggers for treatment, types of treatment, changes in Gleason grading, pathological changes such as cores involved, percent minimum and maximum.Further biopsy intervals were assessed, follow-up time, and surgical pathology if available.Consent was obtained.Results: Manitoba Prostate Centre has 194 patients on Active Surveillance; 64 of whom received treatment.Of the treated patients the median age was 65 with an average follow up of 5.3 years, and average of 2.6 biopsies each.Median interval to first biopsy was 9.5 months, and 12 between all biopsies.Majority of patients had Gleason 3+3 when started on active surveillance.68.8% had a final Gleason of ≥3+4.64.6% of initial biopsies were triggered by PSA, and 81.3% of treatment was triggered by biopsy results, i.e.Gleason progression or volume changes.Conclusions: The Manitoba Prostate Centre treatment data of Active surveillance is consistent with what is found in the literature.The data collected represents a significant cohort of patients relative to available literature.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.742 | 0.556 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".