MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030937175 · doi:10.1097/spc.0b013e3282f0c74f

Preservation of bone health in prostate cancer

2007· review· en· W2030937175 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐Baptiste Lattouf, Fred Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Urological Association
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyZoledronic acidBone metastasisOncologyBone mineralInternal medicineOsteoporosisBisphosphonateCancerBone Density Conservation AgentsBone diseaseProstate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bone is the most common site of metastasis in prostate cancer. The burden of disease from bone metastasis has repercussions in terms of cost to society, decreased quality of life, and decreased survival. Given the magnitude of bone-related morbidity in advanced prostate cancer, physicians need to be aware of preventive and therapeutic measures, and to be proactive in implementing them. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients with prostate cancer are often osteopenic at baseline. Implementing androgen-deprivation therapy further increases bone mineral density loss. Lifestyle changes, vitamin D and calcium supplementation may slow the rate of bone mineral density loss. Bisphosphonates reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-related bone loss in prostate cancer patients. Zoledronic acid is the only bisphosphonate proven to decrease skeletal-related events in a randomized controlled trial in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Newer agents such as selective oestrogen receptor modifiers and antibodies targeting receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand are under investigation. SUMMARY: Bone mineral density loss and skeletal complications are directly related to androgen-deprivation therapy and metastases in prostate cancer patients. Preventive and therapeutic modalities are available to physicians, who should be proactive in implementing them. Novel agents are under investigation and data pertaining to their efficacy should become available in the near future.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative CareSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207