Reply by Authors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyReview Article1 May 2021Reply by Authorsis a reply to letterEditorial Comment David-Dan Nguyen, Lorine Haeuser, Marco Paciotti, Chanan Reitblat, Jacqueline Cellini, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Adam S. Kibel, Atish D. Choudhury, Eugene B. Cone, and Quoc-Dien Trinh David-Dan NguyenDavid-Dan Nguyen Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada More articles by this author , Lorine HaeuserLorine Haeuser Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author , Marco PaciottiMarco Paciotti Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author , Chanan ReitblatChanan Reitblat Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author , Jacqueline CelliniJacqueline Cellini Countway Library, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author , Stuart R. LipsitzStuart R. Lipsitz Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author , Adam S. KibelAdam S. Kibel Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author , Atish D. ChoudhuryAtish D. Choudhury Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author , Eugene B. ConeEugene B. Cone Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author , and Quoc-Dien TrinhQuoc-Dien Trinh *Correspondence: Harvard Medical School, Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 45 Francis St, Boston, Massachusetts , 02115 telephone: 617-525-7350; FAX: 617-525-6348; E-mail Address: [email protected] Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Financial interest and/or other relationship with Astellas, Bayer, Janssen and Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001601.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail We thank Albertsen for the insightful comment accompanying our systematic review examining the effect of time to definitive treatment on outcomes of intermediate risk and high risk prostate cancer. While our review question is based on the premise that earlier intervention for intermediate risk and high risk prostate cancer is associated with a benefit, our findings that delays do not impact mortality may provide some ecological basis to Hellman’s or Fischer’s models of cancer spread for prostate cancer.1 Our findings have added value in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and for pandemics to come; they can help administrators and physicians better triage elective prostate cancer procedures. Specifically, one must weigh the risks associated with COVID-19 for the patient, personnel, equipment, and bed allocation against the oncological harms of delaying surgery. At the very least, our study may serve to reassure patients about the relative safety of delays in surgical care for prostate cancer. Reference 1. : Trends in metastatic breast and prostate cancer–lessons in cancer dynamics. N Eng J Med 2015; 373: 1685. Google Scholar © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of UrologyMar 11, 2021, 12:00:00 AMEditorial Comment Volume 205Issue 5May 2021Page: 1274-1274 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information David-Dan Nguyen Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada More articles by this author Lorine Haeuser Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Marco Paciotti Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Chanan Reitblat Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Jacqueline Cellini Countway Library, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Stuart R. Lipsitz Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Adam S. Kibel Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Atish D. Choudhury Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Eugene B. Cone Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts More articles by this author Quoc-Dien Trinh Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts *Correspondence: Harvard Medical School, Division of Urologic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 45 Francis St, Boston, Massachusetts , 02115 telephone: 617-525-7350; FAX: 617-525-6348; E-mail Address: [email protected] Financial interest and/or other relationship with Astellas, Bayer, Janssen and Intuitive Surgical. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement Loading ...
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 | 0.005 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.048 |
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".