Determinants of vitamin D levels in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies found an association between decreased 25-OH vitamin D blood level and prostate cancer progression. Vitamin D supplementation is controversial and dosage recommendations inconsistent. This study identified factors associated with 25-OH vitamin D levels and whether vitamin D supplementation with 800 IU/day raised vitamin D levels in prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). DATA SOURCES: We recruited 108 men treated with ADT for ≥9 months from eight cancer and urology practices. Sections of the NHANES 2005-2006 questionnaire and Canadian Fitness Survey were completed identifying age, ethnicity, length of ADT use, calcium supplementation ≥1000 IU mg/day, body mass index, exercise, alcohol and tobacco use, and vitamin D supplementation ≥800 IU/daily. Blood was collected for 25-OH vitamin D analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of men (66%) had blood levels of 25-OH vitamin D <32 ng/mL. Regression analysis showed vitamin D supplementation (β = 6.556, CI 1.463, 11.650; p = .012) and African American ethnicity (β = -7.816, CI -12.996, -2.635; p = .003) is associated with 25-OH vitamin D level after controlling age and tobacco use. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings support current recommendations for supplementation with ≥800 IU vitamin D/day for men receiving ADT. Nurse practitioners caring for prostate cancer patients receiving ADT should include vitamin D monitoring and supplementation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".