Prostate specific‐antigen distribution in asymptomatic Canadian men with no clinical evidence of prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine prostate specific-antigen (PSA) levels and percentage free/total PSA (f/tPSA) distributions as well as digital rectal examination (DRE) profiles in asymptomatic Canadian men with no established prostate cancer diagnosis, as recent data indicate that a man's risk of developing prostate cancer is higher if his baseline PSA level is above the median for his age group. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We used data obtained during an early prostate cancer-detection event. An invitation to an onsite DRE, PSA level and f/tPSA assessment was accepted by 313 men. Serum PSA level and f/tPSA were measured before the DRE. A suspicious DRE and/or PSA level of > or = 2.5 ng/mL or f/tPSA of < or = 15% represented indications for a systematic 12-core ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. RESULTS: Of all the 313 men, most (235, 75%) had PSA levels of 0.01-1.53 ng/mL and an f/tPSA of >15% (285, 91.1%). The median (range) PSA level was 0.8 (0-34.2) ng/mL and f/tPSA was 27.4 (6.7-100)%. Age-specific median PSA levels and f/tPSA were, respectively, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, 1.5 ng/mL and 31%, 27%, 26%, 25% for men aged 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and 70-79 years. A suspicious DRE was recorded in 55 (17.6%) men, with eight (8.8%), 26 (20.0%), 14 (20.6%), and seven (28.9%) having suspicious DRE findings according to above age categories. Overall, seven (2.2%) prostate cancers were detected. CONCLUSION: The median age-specific baseline PSA levels and f/tPSA represent valuable indicators of prostate cancer risk. The population-specific baseline median PSA level should not be >1.0 ng/mL and the baseline f/tPSA should be >30%. Men with values outside of these ranges should be considered at greater risk of 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".