MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967664341 · doi:10.1002/pros.20819

Insulin‐like growth factor‐I, insulin‐like growth factor binding protein‐3 and risk of benign prostate hyperplasia in the prostate cancer prevention trial

2008· article· en· W1967664341 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsIGFBP3MedicineProstate cancerInternal medicineOdds ratioPlaceboOncologyRisk factorInsulin-like growth factorInsulinLogistic regressionHyperplasiaEndocrinologyGynecologyGrowth factorCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether peptides involved in cellular proliferation and apoptosis, [insulin-like growth factor I (IGFI) and its major binding protein (insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3)], predicted risk of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: We conducted a nested-case-control study in the placebo arm of the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT). Cases (n = 727) were men with surgical or medical treatment for BPH; two or more IPSS scores >14; or two scores of at least five points over baseline one of which was >or=12. Controls (n = 727) were frequency matched by age to cases, reported no BPH treatment, and no IPSS score >8. Cases and controls remained on the PCPT placebo and were followed closely until their 7-year PCPT anniversary. Baseline serum was analyzed for IGFI and IGFBP3. Unconditional logistic regression and polytomous regression estimated the multivariate-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for BPH risk. RESULTS: IGFBP3 was inversely and the IGFI:IGFBP3 ratio was positively associated with BPH risk, but findings were statistically significant only for men with severe symptoms (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.40-0.90 for the fifth vs. first quintile of IGFBP3, P-trend = 0.01). Associations did not differ by age (<65 or >or=65 years), and there was a suggestion that the IGFI:IGFBP3 - BPH risk association may be stronger among overweight men. CONCLUSIONS: A high IGFI:IGFBP3 ratio was associated with increased BPH risk, and high serum IGFBP3 was associated with decreased BPH risk among men with severe symptoms. These results confirm findings from other recent studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it