Effect of body mass index on prostate‐specific antigen and percentage free prostate‐specific antigen: Results from a prostate cancer screening cohort of 1490 men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported an effect of obesity, defined as elevated body mass index (BMI), on prostate cancer biology. We examined the relationship between BMI and total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) as well as percent free tPSA (%f/tPSA) in a large prostate cancer screening cohort. METHODS: Height, weight, tPSA and %f/tPSA were assessed in 1490 consecutively screened Canadian men without known prostate cancer. Continuously coded and categorized BMI were studied. Statistical analyses consisted of anova, linear regression and bivariate correlations, which adjusted for the effect of age. RESULTS: Median tPSA was 1.06 ng/mL and median %f/tPSA was 27. Median BMI was 26.17 kg/m2. Increasing BMI was weakly, albeit statistically significantly, associated with decreasing %f/tPSA values (correlation coefficient = -0.06, P = 0.01). However, when the World Health Organization BMI categories were considered, there were no statistically significant differences between %f/tPSA values according to categories (anovaP = 0.2). tPSA failed to demonstrate any statistically significant association with either continuously coded (correlation coefficient = -0.03, P = 0.2) or categorized BMI (anovaP = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Body mass index is not a confounder of either tPSA or %f/tPSA in Canadian men without known prostate cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".