Psychological effects of androgen‐deprivation therapy on men with prostate cancer and their partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical benefits of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with prostate cancer (PC) have been well documented and include living free from the symptoms of metastases for longer periods and improved quality of life. However, ADT comes with a host of its own serious side effects. There is considerable evidence of the adverse cardiovascular, metabolic, and musculoskeletal effects of ADT. Far less has been written about the psychological effects of ADT. This review highlights several adverse psychological effects of ADT. The authors provide evidence for the effect of ADT on men's sexual function, their partner, and their sexual relationship. Evidence of increased emotional lability and depressed mood in men who receive ADT is also presented, and the risk of depression in the patient's partner is discussed. The evidence for adverse cognitive effects with ADT is still emerging but suggests that ADT is associated with impairment in multiple cognitive domains. Finally, the available literature is reviewed on interventions to mitigate the psychological effects of ADT. Across the array of adverse effects, physical exercise appears to have the greatest potential to address the psychological effects of ADT both in men who are receiving ADT and in their partners.
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 | 0.000 | 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".