Depression and androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: A prospective controlled study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main goal of this controlled study was to compare the presence of depressive symptoms and disorders in men receiving a combination of androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy (ADT-RTH) to men receiving RTH only. METHOD: A total of 60 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer formed two groups: (a) ADT-RTH (n = 28) and (b) RTH only (n = 32). The ADT-RTH group was further subdivided between men who received long-term ADT (n = 17) and short-term ADT (n = 11). All participants were assessed prior to ADT initiation, and at seven additional times over a period of 16 months using semistructured interviews and self-report scales. RESULTS: The prevalence of depressive disorders ranged from 5.5% to 23.0% over the study period. The introduction of ADT was associated with increases in depressive symptoms for some measures but these differences were not significant. Likewise, withdrawal of ADT was associated with consistent decreases in depressive symptoms, but none of these differences was significant. The small sample size may have limited the statistical power to detect those differences. However, calculations of effect sizes revealed that most of them were of a small magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first controlled study that investigated the possible role of ADT in the development of depression using prostate cancer patients who were not receiving ADT as controls. Overall, it appears that ADT does not represent a major risk factor for depression. This is good news for patients receiving this treatment who already have to adapt to many of its other side effects.
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) | 0.000 | 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".