Meta-analysis of treatment effects for localized prostate cancer: a comparative study of seed implant brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To systematically summarize the effects of seed implantation brachytherapy (BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in treating localized prostate cancer patients and conduct a meta-analysis. All relevant research reports on the effects of radioactive seed implantation BT and EBRT on the clinical efficacy of localized prostate cancer were searched. The search related databases were English databases, involving Pubmed, EMbase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials, etc. After literature screening, 10 articles were finally obtained. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scores were all ≥7 points, and all were high-quality articles. The forest plot showed that compared with EBRT, the 5-year overall survival rate of localized prostate cancer patients treated by radioactive seed implantation BT was higher [RR = 1.15, 95 %CI (1.12; 1.18), P < 0.05]. Compared with EBRT alone, the biochemical progression-free survival rate of localized prostate cancer patients treated by radioactive seed implantation BT combined with EBRT was higher [RR = 1.23, 95 %CI (1.19; 1.28), P < 0.05]. Compared with EBRT alone, the occurrence of gastrointestinal toxicity in localized prostate cancer patients treated by radioactive seed implantation BT was lower [RR = 0.73, 95 %CI (0.61; 0.89), P < 0.05]. The funnel plot showed that the scatter distribution of the subjects was symmetrical as a whole, indicating that there may be a small risk of publication bias. The effect of BT seed implantation in treating localized prostate cancer is better than that of EBRT. The 5-year overall survival rate of patients is higher, and the gastrointestinal toxicity is significantly reduced. The limitation of this review is that our findings predominantly reflect historical EBRT techniques, and the differences in toxicity between BT and EBRT may have been reduced by IGRT use. Caution is warranted when generalizing these results to modern radiotherapy protocols.
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 | 0.023 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.064 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".