The natural history of prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate cancer was first described in 1853, by J. Adams at the London Hospital.In his report, the surgeon in question described the affliction as "a very rare disease" 1 .In the 21 st century, prostate cancer represents the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men in the United States 2 apart from skin cancer, and the second most common cancer in men worldwide 3 .Reported prostate cancer incidence has increased dramatically across a relatively short period in history, bearing in mind that robust epidemiological information on cancer is a relatively new phenomenon and that J. Adams had no way of confirming his thesis that this was in fact a rare disease.From the 1930s onwards, autopsy studies began confirming the high rates of incidental prostate cancer in males 4-6 .Prostate cancer risk rises significantly with age, being rare before the age of 45 and exceedingly common after the age of 70 7 .During J. Adams time at the London Hospital (Figure 1) in the mid 19 th century, life expectancy at birth in the U.K. was 42 years of age [5][6][7] .Thus the incidence of prostate cancer and indeed deaths from prostate cancer have risen alongside an approximate doubling of life expectancy during the intervening time period.Recording of cancer prevalence statistics is a relatively recent phenomenon, meaning that J. Adams did not have way to truly deduce the apparent rare nature of the disease during his time.There is increasing evidence that lifestyle factors including eating a 'Western diet' are linked to a higher risk of prostate cancer [5][6][7] .Lastly, a significant portion of the increase in prostate cancer incidence in the last few decades can no doubt be attributed to the KEY MESSAGES
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".