The presence of prostate cancer at biopsy is predicted by a number of genetic variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been associated with an elevated risk of prostate cancer risk. It is not established if they are useful in predicting the presence of prostate cancer at biopsy or if they can be used to define a low-risk group of men. In this study, 4,548 men underwent a prostate biopsy because of an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA; ≥4 ng/mL) or an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE). All men were genotyped for 11 selected SNPs. The effect of each SNP, alone and in combination, on prostate cancer prevalence was studied. Of 4,548 men: 1,834 (40.3%) were found to have cancer. A positive association with prostate cancer was seen for 5 of 11 SNPs studied (rs1800629, rs1859962, rs1447295, rs4430796, rs11228565). The cancer detection rate rose with the number of SNP risk alleles from 29% for men with no variant to 63% for men who carried seven or more risk alleles (OR = 4.2; p = 0.002). The SNP data did not improve the predictive power of clinical factors (age, PSA and DRE) for detecting prostate cancer (AUC: 0.726 vs. 0.735; p = 0.4). We were unable to define a group of men with a sufficiently low prevalence of prostate cancer that a biopsy might have been avoided. In conclusion, our data do not support the routine use of SNP polymorphisms as an adjunct test to be used on the context of prostate biopsy for Polish men with an abnormal screening test.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".