Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Evolutionary Parallels to Breast Cancer Treatment. Letter.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyLetters to the Editor1 May 2023Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Evolutionary Parallels to Breast Cancer Treatment. Letter. Pier Paolo Avolio, Thomas J. Polascik, Ardeshir Rastinehad, Jean de la Rosette, and Rafael Sanchez-Salas Pier Paolo AvolioPier Paolo Avolio https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7497-265X Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montréal, Canada , Thomas J. PolascikThomas J. Polascik Department of Urology, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina , Ardeshir RastinehadArdeshir Rastinehad Department of Urology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York , Jean de la RosetteJean de la Rosette Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey , and Rafael Sanchez-SalasRafael Sanchez-Salas Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montréal, Canada View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003423AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Evolutionary Parallels to Breast Cancer Treatment. Letter.." The Journal of Urology, 209(5), pp. 848–849 REFERENCES 1. . Focal therapy for prostate cancer: evolutionary parallels to breast cancer treatment. J Urol. 2023; 209(1):49-57. Link, Google Scholar 2. Evolution in the concept of focal therapy: the story of breast cancer and prostate cancer. In: , ed. Imaging and Focal Therapy of Early Prostate Cancer. Springer International Publishing; 2017;3-19. Crossref, Google Scholar 3. . Prostate cancer screening with PSA and MRI followed by targeted biopsy only. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387(23):2126-2137. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 4. . MRI-guided focused ultrasound focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a phase 2b, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23(7):910-918. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 5. . Therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparative effectiveness review. J Urol. 2021; 205(4):967-976. Link, Google Scholar Submitted February 2, 2023; accepted March 6, 2023; published 000. © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue 5May 2023Page: 848-849 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Pier Paolo Avolio Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montréal, Canada More articles by this author Thomas J. Polascik Department of Urology, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina More articles by this author Ardeshir Rastinehad Department of Urology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York More articles by this author Jean de la Rosette Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey More articles by this author Rafael Sanchez-Salas Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montréal, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Submitted February 2, 2023; accepted March 6, 2023; published 000. Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".