© 2011 Canadian Urological Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CUA exists to promote the highest standard of urologic care for Canadians and to advance the art and science of urology. The Canadian Urological Association (CUA) position on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening test for prostate cancer differs from the recent position1 of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The USPSTF concluded that PSA-based screening minimally reduces prostate cancer-specific deaths and is associated with harms related to evaluation and treatments, some of which may be unnecessary. This position differs from the CUA position published in August 2011.2 The CUA stands by its guideline on PSA screening for prostate cancer: PSA testing should be offered to all men 50 years of age or older with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. Men at increased risk of prostate cancer (those of African descent or having a close relative with prostate cancer) should consider beginning testing for prostate cancer at age 40. Prostate cancer remains the most common cancer in Canada (excluding skin cancer) with 25,500 new cases and 4100 deaths projected in 2011.3 The principle of screening for a disease implies early detection of a condition that is common, amenable to cure
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.580 | 0.307 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".