Differences in overall survival of penile cancer patients versus population‐based controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess whether 5-year overall survival (OS) of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCP) patients differs from age-matched male population-based controls. METHODS: We relied on the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2018) to identify newly diagnosed (2004-2013) SCCP patients. For each case, we simulated an age-matched control (Monte Carlo simulation), relying on the Social Security Administration (SSA) Life Tables with 5 years of follow-up. We compared OS between SCCP patients and population-based controls in a stage-specific fashion. Smoothed cumulative incidence plots displayed cancer-specific mortality (CSM) versus other-cause mortality (OCM). RESULTS: Of 2282 SCCP patients, the stage distribution was as follows: stage I 976 (43%) versus stage II 826 (36%) versus stage III 302 (13%) versus stage IV 178 (8%). At 5 years, OS of SCCP patients versus age-matched population-based controls was as follows: stage I 63% versus 80% (Δ = 17%), stage II 50% versus 80% (Δ = 30%), stage III 39% versus 84% (Δ = 45%), stage IV 26% versus 87% (Δ = 61%). At 5 years, CSM versus OCM in SCCP patients according to stage was as follows: stage I 12% versus 24%, stage II 22% versus 28%, stage III 47% versus 14%, and stage IV 60% versus 14%. CONCLUSION: SCCP patients exhibit worse OS across all stages. The difference in OS at 5 years between SCCP and age-matched male population-based controls ranged from 17% to 61%. At 5 years, CSM accounted for 12% to 60% of all deaths, across all stages.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".