MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Controversies in Sexual Medicine

2011· review· en· W1562284737 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuele A. Jannini, Giovanni Luca Gravina, Abraham Mortengaler, Álvaro Morales, Luca Incrocci, Wayne J.G. Hellstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineHyperplasiaGynecologyProstateSexual medicineExpert opinionUrologyDiseaseInternal medicineCancerOncologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Is there any unequivocal evidence that testosterone (T) can stimulate growth and aggravate symptoms in men with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa)? This is not a controversial point: the answer is yes. However, this evidence does not imply that PCa is a result of T or therapy with T (TTh) of hypogonadal men. Furthermore, currently adequately powered and optimally designed long-term prostate disease data are not available to determine if there is an additional risk from normal T values in cured patients for PCa. METHODS: This Controversy is introduced by an endocrinologist, the section editor (E.A.J.) with G.L.G., a fellow urologist and radiotherapist expert in basic research on PCa. Two outstanding urologists, A.M and W.J.G.H., debate clinical data and clinical guidelines, respectively. Finally, other controversial issues are discussed by another leader in the field (A.M.) and a radiation oncologist and sexologist who is actually president of the International Society for Sexuality and Cancer (L.I.). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Expert opinion supported by the critical review of the currently available literature. RESULT: The answer to the main question "is the prostate a really T-dependent tissue?" is definitively yes, but T stimulates the prostatic tissue in a dose-dependent fashion only to a saturation point, achieved at low T concentrations. At these low T concentrations, stimulation is near maximal, and T supplementation above this level would not lead to significantly greater stimulation. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence that TTh increases the risk of PCa or even prostatic hyperplasia. There is also no evidence that TTh will convert subclinical PCa to clinically detectable PCa. However, there is a limited clinical experience of TTh after successful treatment of PCa. So far, just 48 patients have been studied in the three published articles. CONCLUSIONS: It is evident that the issue is still controversial and much more research is needed. However, the available data suggest to the expert in sexual medicine that TTh can be cautiously considered in selected hypogonadal men previously treated for curative intent of low-risk PCa and without evidence of active disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207