Systematic finger guided transrectal needle biopsies of the prostate--alternative to TRUS guided biopsies in clinical practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy of a Systematic Finger Guided (SFG) approach to transrectal Prostate Needle Biopsy (PNB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty-nine sets of SFG PNB were performed on 145 men. At least four biopsy cores were taken systematically from apex to base on each side of the prostate, including suspicious areas if present. The SFG experience was compared to a literature cohort and to 14 patients who had both SFG and TRUS guided PNB. RESULTS: Of 111 SFG biopsy sets taken from 88 men with suspicious DRE, 53% were positive; 25%, 43% and 84% of men had a PSA of 0-4, 4.1-10 and >10 ng/ml respectively. With benign DRE's, positive biopsies were seen in 22% and 28% of those with a PSA 4.1-10 and >10 ng/ml respectively. Of 22 patients with two or more sets of SFG PNB's, 11 (50%) were positive on repeat PNB. Of the 14 patients with a mix of TRUS and SFG PNB's, six were concordant, four were positive on SFG only, and one on TRUS only (p=n.s.). CONCLUSION: Results of SFG PNB's and TRUS PNB's are equivalent in patients with and without suspicious prostates on DRE, probably due to the systematic nature of the sampling and number of the samples taken.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".