Randomized study evaluating testosterone recovery using short-versuslong-acting luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: : We sought to compare the rate of return of testosterone levels and sexual function in men with prostate cancer receiving longer acting, 3-month preparation of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (L-LHRH-A) versus shorter acting, 1-month preparation of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (S-LHRH-A). METHODS AND MATERIALS: : Men with low to intermediate risk localized prostate cancer were randomized to either L-LHRH-A (2-3 month duration LHRH-A) or S-LHRH-A (6-1 month duration LHRH-A) of androgen suppression therapy (AST) and prostate brachytherapy using iodine-125 radioisotopes. Serum total testosterone levels and PSA were recorded every 2 months for 2 years. RESULTS: : A planned target sample size of 100 was not achieved due to insufficient accrual. A total of 55 patients were randomized and 46 were used for analysis. The median time to recovery of testosterone to baseline levels (calculated from end of AST) was 8 and 4 months in the L-LHRH-A and S-LHRH-A arms, respectively (p = 0.268). The median time to testosterone recovery to lower limit of reference range was 4 and 2 months respectively (p = 0.087). INTERPRETATION: : This randomized study, which failed to reach accrual target, showed a trend towards more rapid recovery of testosterone levels using shorter acting LHRH-A. Another randomized study would be required to validate these findings. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of shorter acting LHRH-A as a means of providing more rapid recovery of testosterone levels.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".