Long‐term impact of androgen‐deprivation therapy on physical function and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the impact of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) on physical function and quality of life (QOL) over 36 months. METHODS: Eighty-seven men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PC) who were starting continuous ADT and 2 control groups (86 PC controls without ADT and 86 healthy controls), matched by age and education, were enrolled. Physical function was assessed with the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), grip strength, and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. QOL was measured with the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey of the Medical Outcomes Study. Subjects were assessed at the baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Mixed effects regression models were fitted with adjustments for baseline covariates. RESULTS: The 6MWT distance improved initially and then stabilized in both control groups but remained unchanged for ADT users (P = .0030). Grip strength remained stable in control groups but declined sharply in the ADT group by 3 months and then remained stable to 36 months (P = .0041). TUG scores declined gradually in the ADT group over 36 months but were unchanged in control groups (P = .0008). Aggregate physical QOL declined in ADT users over time but remained stable in control groups (P = .0001). Aggregate mental QOL was stable in all groups. Declines seen in the first year of ADT use generally persisted over 36 months and were independent of age. CONCLUSIONS: Previously noted physical side effects over the first 12 months of ADT persisted or continued to worsen over an additional 2 years with no evidence of recovery. Exercise interventions to counteract these declines may be warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".