Pre-treatment risk stratification of prostate cancer patients:A critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The use of accepted prostate cancer risk stratification groups based on prostate-specific antigen, T stage and Gleason score assists in therapeutic treatment decision-making, clinical trial design and outcome reporting. The utility of integrating novel prognostic factors into an updated risk stratification schema is an area of current debate. The purpose of this work is to critically review the available literature on novel pre-treatment prognostic factors and alternative prostate cancer risk stratification schema to assess the feasibility and need for changes to existing risk stratification systems. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify original research publications and review articles on prognostic factors and risk stratification in prostate cancer. Search terms included risk stratification, risk assessment, prostate cancer or neoplasms, and prognostic factors. Abstracted information was assessed to draw conclusions regarding the potential utility of changes to existing risk stratification schema. Results: The critical review identified three specific clinically relevant potential changes to the most commonly used three-group risk stratification system: (1) the creation of a very-low risk category; (2) the splitting of intermediate-risk into a low- and highintermediate risk groups; and (3) the clarification of the interface between intermediate- and high-risk disease. Novel pathological factors regarding high-grade cancer, subtypes of Gleason score 7 and percentage biopsy cores positive were also identified as potentially important risk-stratification factors. Conclusions: Multiple studies of prognostic factors have been performed to create currently utilized prostate cancer risk stratification systems. We propose potential changes to existing systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".