MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998765430 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.11126

Stimulation of a non-functioning pituitary macroadenoma after administration of goserelin acetate for locally advanced prostate cancer causing a sustained elevation in PSA and testosterone

2012· article· en· W1998765430 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fady Youssef, R. Robinson, Nigel R. Boucher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineInternal medicineGoserelinEndocrinologyTestosterone (patch)Luteinizing hormoneContext (archaeology)Androgen deprivation therapyAndrogenHormoneCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-acting luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, such as goserelin, have been used for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer for many years and are the main forms of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Acting on pituitary LHRH receptors, they initially stimulate a transient rise in serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and LH. Long-term administration of an LHRH analogue will eventually lead to down regulation of LHRH receptors, thus suppressing FSH and LH secretion. This in turn suppresses testosterone production hence achieving and maintaining androgen deprivation. This case highlights the potential anomaly of a sustained elevated serum testosterone in the context of newly diagnosed locally advanced prostate cancer with a co-existing pituitary macroadenoma after administration of LHRH analogues. Alternative methods of androgen deprivation must be considered in such patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207