The Prevalence of Cardiac Risk Factors in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer Undergoing Androgen Deprivation Therapy in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. While androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) reduces the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality in high-risk localized prostate cancer, it adversely affects cardiovascular (CV) risk factor profiles in treated men. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 100 consecutive men with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer referred to the British Columbia Cancer Agency for ADT. Data on CV risk factors and disease were collected and Framingham risk scores were calculated. Results. The median age of the study cohort was 73 years. Established cardiovascular disease was present in 25% of patients. Among patients without established CV disease, calculated Framingham risk was high in 65%, intermediate in 33%, and low in 1%. Baseline hypertension was present in 58% of patients, dyslipidemia in 51%, and diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance in 24%. Hypertension was more prevalent in the study cohort than in an age- and sex-matched population sample (OR 1.74, P = 0.006); diabetes had a similar prevalence (OR 0.93, P = 0.8). Conclusions. Patients receiving ADT have a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease and risk factors and are more likely to be hypertensive than population controls. Low rates of CV risk screening suggest opportunities for improved primary and secondary prevention of CV disease in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".