MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An update on chemoprevention strategies in prostate cancer for 2006

2006· review· en· W1992553860 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

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFinasterideProstate cancerCancer preventionClinical trialCancerProstateOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An increasing volume of research has been directed at the prevention of prostate cancer. This review proposes to summarize the large trials, novel approaches and molecular mechanisms of effect published in 2004 and 2005. RECENT FINDINGS: The impact of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial continues and subsequent articles have addressed the increase of high-grade prostate cancers detected in the finasteride arm of the trial, as well as the potential costs and benefits of extrapolating the findings to a public health campaign. Studies of risk have been published warning of excessive vitamin E and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor use in chemoprevention. Growing evidence supports the concept of chemopreventative agent combinations and further data on the roles of selenium, lycopene, soy, green tea, anti-inflammatories and statins in prostate-cancer prevention are presented. SUMMARY: Level one evidence exists for the preventative effects of finasteride in prostate cancer. The evidence for other agents is less conclusive but a number of large-scale, appropriately designed trials will hopefully address some of the relevant issues in prostate-cancer prevention over the next decade.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.359 · 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