MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252805818 · doi:10.1002/cncr.22803

Author reply

2007· article· en· W4252805818 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas Bruchovsky, Laurence Klotz, Juanita Crook

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerRadiation therapyUrologyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialExternal beam radiotherapyCancerInternal medicineSurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the letter by Rocco et al, in which they address several issues in our recently published article1 that would benefit from further clarification. At the time when this trial was conducted, options for salvage therapy of local failure after radiotherapy were very limited because salvage radical prostatectomy was considered a morbid procedure associated with a high risk of incontinence. Given a choice, patients entering our clinical trial would have avoided this procedure and even today it is not widely practiced in Canada. The question of whether some patients might have been prematurely declared as having failed therapy due to the phenomenon of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) bounce after external beam radiation is unlikely to be relevant in our study. As we reported previously,2 the mean time from irradiation to the initiation of treatment was 4.6 ± 0.3 years. Eligible patients were required to have a rising serum PSA of at least 6.0 μg/L. In fact, the mean pretreatment serum PSA level was 21.2 ± 1.6 μg/L and 83.7% of the patients had a positive biopsy at the time of registration. The mean pretreatment serum testosterone level was 13.2 ± 0.4 nmol/L and there was no suggestion of fluctuations that might have erroneously resulted in an elevation of the serum PSA. Undoubtedly, these patients had failed radiotherapy. In the overview of the randomized trials of maximum androgen blockade by the Prostate Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group,3 the difficulty of interpreting survival relative to different forms of androgen withdrawal therapy is emphasized given the range of uncertainty, which runs from approximately 0% to approximately 5% with a margin of benefit of only 2% to 3%. However, this problem does not arise in our study,1 which focused on patients with locally advanced cancer and not metastatic disease as in the meta-analysis of randomized trials. To our knowledge, there is no evidence that cyproterone acetate in doses of 100 to 200 mg daily is detrimental in men with local disease recurrence. In addition, the data arising from our trial yield a survival rate equivalent to that observed in a similar population of healthy men (unpublished data), a finding that is consistent with the absence of major drug-related morbidity. Nicholas Bruchovsky MD, PhD, MD*, Laurence Klotz MD , Juanita Crook MD , * The Prostate Center at Vancouver General Hospital Division of Urology Department of SurgeryUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver British Columbia, Canada, Department of Urology Sunnybrook Medical Center, Toronto Ontario, Canada, Department of Radiation Oncology Princess Margaret HospitalToronto, Ontario, Canada.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0260.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.023

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207