MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394747651 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31040163

Active Surveillance in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer, the Potential Role of Biomarkers: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4394747651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diego Parrao, Nemecio Lizana, Catalina Saavedra, Matías Larrañaga, Carolina B. Lindsay, Ignacio F. San Francisco, Juan Cristóbal Bravo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerIntensive care medicineCancerMortality rateGold standard (test)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bladder cancer (BC) is the tenth most common cause of cancer worldwide and is the thirteenth leading cause of cancer mortality. The non-muscle invasive (NMI) variant represents 75% of cases and has a mortality rate of less than 1%; however, it has a high recurrence rate. The gold standard of management is transurethral resection in the case of new lesions. However, this is associated with significant morbidity and costs, so the reduction of these procedures would contribute to reducing complications, morbidity, and the burden to the health system associated with therapy. In this clinical scenario, strategies such as active surveillance have emerged that propose to manage low-risk BC with follow-up; however, due to the low evidence available, this is a strategy that is underutilized by clinicians. On the other hand, in the era of biomarkers, it is increasingly known how to use them as a tool in BC. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide to clinical practitioners the evidence available to date on AS and the potential role of biomarkers in this therapeutic strategy in patients with low-grade/risk NMIBC. This is the first review linking use of biomarkers and active surveillance, including 29 articles.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→