1451 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MALE PATTERN BALDNESS AND SECOND TO FORTH FINGER RATIO WITH PROSTATE CANCER- A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection and Screening II1 Apr 20121451 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MALE PATTERN BALDNESS AND SECOND TO FORTH FINGER RATIO WITH PROSTATE CANCER- A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY David Margel, Seetha Venkateswaran, Abbas Darwish, Antonio Finelli, John Trachtenberg, Karen Chadwick, and Neil Fleshner David MargelDavid Margel Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Seetha VenkateswaranSeetha Venkateswaran Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Abbas DarwishAbbas Darwish Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Antonio FinelliAntonio Finelli Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , John TrachtenbergJohn Trachtenberg Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Karen ChadwickKaren Chadwick Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , and Neil FleshnerNeil Fleshner Toronto, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1945AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Androgens play a role in the development of androgenic alopecia, commonly known as male pattern baldness. The ratio of the lengths of index and ring fingers (2D:4D) is also a marker of exposure to sex hormones, with low 2D:4D being indicative of high prenatal androgen action. Retrospective case control studies have demonstrated an association between male pattern baldness and 2D:4D ratio and prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to validate these findings in a prospective cohort. METHODS Upon approval from our local ethical review board we prospectively enrolled 196 consecutive patients referred to a prostate biopsy. Finger lengths were measured using a digital vernier calliper, and the 2D:4D ratio was calculated. Male pattern baldness was assessed on a scale of 0-4 using the standardized Norwood classification (0= no balding, 1= frontal balding, 2= Mild vortex, 3=moderate vortex and 4=severe vortex). We performed all measurements prior to the biopsy thus blinded to the pathology outcome. We performed a univariable and multivariable analysis to associate 2D:4D ratio and male pattern baldness with prostate cancer diagnosis at biopsy. The multivariable model included the two main predictors (male pattern baldness and 2D:4D ratio) as well age, digital rectal examination (normalvs abnormal) and PSA. RESULTS The median (IQR) age and PSA of our cohort was 64 (59-70) and 5.8 (4.1-8.4), respectively. Overall 109 patients (55%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. On univariable analysis male pattern baldness was associated with prostate cancer (p for trend=0.03). However 2D:4D ratio was not. On multivariable analysis male pattern baldness remained a significant predictor of prostate cancer. Furthermore, we noted a dose response effect- the more severe balding patterns were more strongly associated with prostate cancer (Frontal balding OR 2.0 (95%CI 1.1-6.6); mild vortex OR 2.1 (95%CI 1.5-5.2); moderate vortex OR 2.5 (95%CI 1.2-7.1); severe vortex OR 2.9 (95%CI 1.1-4.3). CONCLUSIONS In a prospective cohort we found that male pattern baldness was an independent predictor of prostate cancer. Further studies are needed in order to assess whether the inclusion of male pattern baldness can contribute to existing models to predict prostate cancer prior to biopsy. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e588 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information David Margel Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Seetha Venkateswaran Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Abbas Darwish Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Antonio Finelli Toronto, Canada More articles by this author John Trachtenberg Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Karen Chadwick Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Neil Fleshner Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».