MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416018691 · doi:10.14740/wjnu1010

Discordance Between Prostate-Specific Antigen and Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in Recurrent Prostate Cancer

2025· article· en· W4416018691 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. Lim, Chi Eung Danforn Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Nephrology and Urology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerProstatectomyPositron emission tomographyOccultBiochemical recurrenceRecurrent prostate cancerbreakpoint cluster regionGlutamate carboxypeptidase IIProstate-specific antigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer biochemical recurrence (BCR) refers to a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after treatment. It remains a major diagnostic challenge. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, especially with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) tracers, has emerged as a highly sensitive tool for localizing prostate cancer recurrence. This review examines the use of PET scans in detecting prostate cancer recurrence, evaluates diagnostic challenges and pitfalls, and discusses the limitations of PET in the BCR setting. We also report a case of a 77-year-old man with early BCR after prostatectomy and multimodal therapy, whose PSA climbed progressively from 0.03 to 7.0 ng/mL over 7 years despite salvage treatments. Notably, four consecutive PET scans and a bone scan remained negative for recurrent or metastatic disease, highlighting the limitations of imaging in detecting occult micrometastatic prostate cancer. PET imaging has greatly improved recurrence detection. Still, false negatives and reading pitfalls can affect patient management.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Nephrology and UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207