Circumcision and prostate cancer: a population‐based case‐control study in <scp>M</scp> ontréal, <scp>C</scp> anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the possible association between circumcision and prostate cancer risk, to examine whether age at circumcision influences prostate cancer risk, and to determine whether race modifies the circumcision-prostate cancer relationship. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: PROtEuS (Prostate Cancer and Environment Study), a population-based case-control study set amongst the mainly French-speaking population in Montréal, Canada, was used to address study objectives. The study included 1590 pathologically confirmed prostate cancer cases diagnosed in a Montréal French hospital between 2005 and 2009, and 1618 population controls ascertained from the French electoral list, frequency-matched to cases by age. In-person interviews elicited information on sociodemographic, lifestyle and environmental factors. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between circumcision, age at circumcision and prostate cancer risk, adjusting for age, ancestry, family history of prostate cancer, prostate cancer screening history, education, and history of sexually transmitted infections. RESULTS: Circumcised men had a slightly lower risk, albeit not statistically significant, of developing prostate cancer than uncircumcised men (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76-1.04). Circumcision was found to be protective in men circumcised aged ≥36 years (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30-0.98). A weaker protective effect was seen among men circumcised within 1 year of birth (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72-1.04). The strongest protective effect of circumcision was recorded in Black men (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.86, P-value for interaction 0.02) but no association was found with other ancestral groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide novel evidence for a protective effect of circumcision against prostate cancer development, especially in those circumcised aged ≥36 years; although circumcision before the age of 1 year may also confer protection. Circumcision appeared to be protective only among Black men, a group that has the highest rate of disease. Further research into the differences in effect of circumcision on prostate cancer risk by ancestry is warranted, as is the influence of age at circumcision.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".