Prostate cancer survival in Trinidad: Is PSA a prognostic factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among men in the western hemisphere, including Trinidad and Tobago. The aim of this study is to describe the epidemiological features of prostate cancer among patients admitted to a tertiary level teaching hospital during 2002 to 2005. We assessed the long term survival of patients with prostate cancer and the epidemiology of the disease.Methods: We reviewed the admissions data for the period 2002-2005. Demographic, clinical and outcomes (survival or death) data were collected and analysed, using SPSS version 16. Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Mier survival analysis, Cox regression models and the log-rank test. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: Of the 1250 cases reviewed, 242 participants were selected. Patients of African ancestry, older than 60 years and a Gleason score greater than 7 had an increased risk of mortality. Patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥100 ng/L had a 3-fold increasedrisk of mortality. Survival rates declined between 2002 and 2005.Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind to demonstrate survival rates among patients with prostate cancer in Trinidad. The following epidemiological features were identified: average age of occurrence of 71 years, ethnic disparity with higher occurrence in African men than all other ethnic groups and a PSA of >100 ng/dL. These features were associated with a 3-fold higher risk of death. A Gleason score of 8 to 10 was also associated with lower survival rates.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".