PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Pablo Gomez

Publications and source records attributed to Pablo Gomez.

20 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Visual estimate of percent of carcinoma predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Tumor volume is an important prognosticator for predicting prostate cancer recurrence following radical prostatectomy (RP). We assessed the ability of the visual estimate of the percent of carcinoma (VEPC) to predict recurrence. METHODS AND MATERIALS: As performed by 1 surgeon (MSS), 1,114 men underwent radical prostatectomy between 1992 and February 2002. Patients who had less than 12 months of followup, who underwent salvage RP or in whom VEPC was not assessed in the pathology specimen were excluded. VEPC and other clinical variables were analyzed. We performed univariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier log rank test. Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards regression was performed. RESULTS: A total of 692 patients with a mean age of 61 +/- 7 years met the criteria for this analysis. Mean followup was 52 +/- 30 months. Of the patients 17% had biochemical recurrence. Mean VEPC was 25% and 13% in those with and without recurrence, respectively. On univariate analysis all variables were significant predictors of recurrence. However, multivariate analysis showed that the only significant predictors of recurrence were patient age, initial prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or greater, RP Gleason 8 to 10, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement and VEPC. Based on disease-free survival curves patients were stratified into 3 broad groups, namely low, intermediate and high volume. The HR for biochemical recurrence was 2.1 for the intermediate VEPC group (9.1% to 20%) and 2.7 for the high VEPC group (greater than 20%). In the reference group it was less than 9% (low volume). CONCLUSIONS: VEPC is a simple and inexpensive method that is an independent predictor of recurrence after RP.

Follow-Up Studies↗

Modelling serial position curves with temporal distinctiveness.

We offer a critique of the temporal distinctiveness model of serial position effects (Nairne, Neath, Serra, & Byun, 1997). The temporal distinctiveness model combines a precise definition of stimulus distinctiveness with a memory perturbation process. The critique is empirically motivated-we show that with a more complete analysis, the temporal distinctiveness model does not adequately account for Nairne et al.'s experimental data. To better account for the data, we independently modified two components of Nairne et al.'s model: the mathematical form of the definition of temporal distinctiveness and the mathematical form of the mapping from distinctiveness to free-recall probabilities. Both of these modifications provided for better fits. Yet both Nairne et al.'s definition and our modified definition are fairly arbitrary. We show that a significant challenge to this approach is to find theoretically motivated constraints of the temporal distinctiveness model while providing for adequate fits to data.

Humans↗