MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411134055 · doi:10.3390/siuj6030038

SIU-ICUD: Focal Therapy for PCa — The Technique

2025· article· en· W4411134055 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lara Rodríguez‐Sánchez, Thomas J. Polascik, Kara Watts, Peter Ka‐Fung Chiu, Mark Emberton, Behfar Ehdaie, Hashim U. Ahmed, Andre Luis Abreu, Ardeshir R. Rastinehad, Rafael Sanchez‐Salas

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryotherapyHigh-intensity focused ultrasoundModality (human–computer interaction)Medical physicsModalitiesMedicineBrachytherapyRadiologyLesionComputer scienceAblationUltrasoundRadiation therapyArtificial intelligenceSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Focal therapy (FT) and technology are closely connected. Advanced imaging allows for precise identification of the index lesion, enabling the targeted use of various thermal and non-thermal energy sources through different approaches, with specific techniques tailored to lesion location and operator expertise. This personalized approach enhances both safety and effectiveness, facilitating customized treatment planning. Methods: The International Consultation on Urological Diseases formed a committee to review the current literature on FT for prostate cancer (PCa), focusing specifically on the technique. Following in-depth discussions, the committee chose a “by lesion” approach rather than the traditional “by energy” approach to structure the review. A comprehensive PubMed search was conducted to gather relevant articles on the various energy modalities and procedural approaches used in FT for PCa. Results: Lesions in the apex, anterior, and posterior regions of the prostate can be accessed through several FT approaches, each associated with specific energy modalities and techniques. The transrectal approach utilizes high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and focal laser ablation (FLA), while the transperineal approach is compatible with energy sources such as cryotherapy, irreversible electroporation (IRE), brachytherapy, and FLA. The transurethral approach supports methods such as transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA). Each approach offers distinct advantages based on lesion location, treatment area, and energy modality. The choice of technique evaluated the safety and efficacy of each energy source and approach based on specific treatment areas within the prostate, highlighting the need for robust research across lesion locations and modalities, rather than focusing solely on each modality for a specific region. Conclusions: FT is rapidly advancing with new energy sources, technological improvements, and increasing operator expertise. To further optimize FT, research should prioritize evaluating the safety and effectiveness of different energy sources for various lesion locations, focusing on the treatment area rather than the energy modality itself.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207