Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: We sought to investigate the impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-compliant multidisciplinary conference on the treatment decisions of men who are 70 years or older with prostate cancer.Methods: Retrospective review of our database was performed.Patients who sought a second opinion at a comprehensive cancer center (2010-2023) were presented to the multidisciplinary Localized Prostate Cancer Conference (LPCC) that includes urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and patient advocates.LPCC recommendations were compared with recommendations by the community urologists and the final treatment received by the patient.Cochrane Armitage test was used to examine trends over time.Results: A total of 259 patients were identified (3% NCCN very low-risk, 17% low-risk, 21% intermediate favorable-, 30% intermediate unfavorable, 29% high/ very high-risk); 34% were recommended AS, 33% were recommended surgery, and 70% were recommended radiation by the community as the preferred option compared to 49%, 31%, and 50%, respectively, by LPCC.AS, radiation, and surgery were elected by 49%, 20%, and 27%, respectively; 4% patients elected ADT.Conclusions: For men who are 70 years or older, AS recommendation increased significantly over time by community urologists (p<0.01) and to a higher extent by NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference (p=0.03).The uptake of AS significantly increased within the same period (p=0.01)(Figure 1).
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.451 | 0.229 |
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".