MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526199464 · doi:10.1111/bju.12241

Empiric antibiotics for an elevated prostate‐specific antigen ( <scp>PSA</scp> ) level: a randomised, prospective, controlled multi‐institutional trial

2013· article· en· W1526199464 on OpenAlexaff
Scott E. Eggener, Michael C. Large, Glenn S. Gerber, Joseph A. Pettus, Ofer Yossepowitch, Norm D. Smith, Shilajit Kundu, Rangesh Kunnavakkam, Kevin C. Zorn, Jay D. Raman

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate biopsyProstatitisProstate-specific antigenProstate cancerUrologyInterquartile rangeProstateClinical endpointInternal medicineCiprofloxacinBiopsyAntibioticsGynecologyRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of empiric antibiotics on men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men of any age with a PSA level of >2.5 ng/mL and normal digital rectal examination undergoing their first prostate biopsy were recruited from five medical centres. Patients with previous biopsy, prostate cancer, urinary tract infection (UTI) or prostatitis within the prior year, antibiotic use within 1 month, 5α-reductase inhibitor use, allergy to fluoroquinolones or clinical suspicion of UTI were excluded. Men were randomised to 2 weeks of ciprofloxacin or no antibiotic. A PSA measurement was obtained 21-45 days after randomisation immediately before prostate biopsy. The primary endpoint was the change in PSA level between baseline and immediately before biopsy. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 77 men with a mean (interquartile range) age of 60.6 (53-66) years. In the control group of men not receiving antibiotic (39 men), the mean baseline and pre-biopsy PSA levels were 6.5 and 6.9 ng/mL, respectively (P = 0.8). In men receiving ciprofloxacin (38 men), the mean baseline PSA level was 7.6 ng/mL and after 2 weeks of ciprofloxacin was 8.5 ng/mL (P = 0.7). Compared with controls not receiving antibiotic, use of ciprofloxacin was not associated with a statistically significant change in PSA level (P = 0.33). Prostate cancer was detected in 36 (47%) men, 23 (59%) in the control group and 13 (34%) in the antibiotic group (P = 0.04). Detection rates were not significantly associated with the change in PSA level between baseline and biopsy. The primary limitation of the study is early stoppage due to an interim futility analysis and poor accrual. CONCLUSION: Despite not meeting the target accrual goal, empiric use of antibiotics for asymptomatic men with an elevated PSA level does not appear to be of clinical benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207