MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415711132 · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000004836

Outcomes Among Rural and Urban Patients With High-Risk Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Results From the Canadian Bladder Cancer Information System

2025· article· en· W4415711132 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wassim Kassouf, R. Agnihotram, H. Alday, Camilla Tajzler, Amir Eskandari, Rodney H. Breau, Girish S. Kulkarni, Peter Chung, A.S. Fairey, M. Lodde, Eric Hyndman, Nimira Alimohamed, Ricardo Rendon, Peter C. Black, Jasmir G. Nayak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of OttawaDalhousie UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBladder cancerRural areaBladder tumorQuality (philosophy)Quality managementMEDLINEData quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Patients with high-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) require frequent surveillance and adjuvant intravesical therapy, which may be less accessible in rural areas. Using the Statistics Canada Remoteness Index, we sought to investigate the effect of rurality/remoteness on the presentation, management, and surveillance of high-risk NMIBC and cancer-specific outcomes such as survival and rate of progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Canadian Bladder Cancer Information System database was used to identify all patients diagnosed with high-risk NMIBC (defined as high-grade [HG] Ta, any T1 disease, CIS) on initial transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Using the manual classification method, rural areas were defined as a Remoteness Index ≥ 0.15. Exclusion criteria included patients with nonurothelial histology, unknown T stage, or evidence of nodal or distant metastases at the time of diagnosis. RESULTS: = .048). CONCLUSIONS: Rural patients with high-risk NMIBC were significantly less likely to meet quality indicator benchmarks for guideline-concordant surveillance and management, although overall rates are low indicating a potential area of quality improvement efforts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Urology→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→