MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Vascular Disease and Prostate Cancer: A Conflicting Association

2014· article· en· W2062027909 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Simona Di Francesco, R. Tenaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of cancer research updates · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineDiseaseProstateInternal medicineHormone therapyCoronary artery diseaseUrologyOncologyCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: To date, only a few studies have explored the relationship between vascular disease and Prostate Cancer (PCa), with conflicting results. The Aim of the research was to investigate the association of carotid vascular disease (CVD) or Coronary Artery disease (CAD) with PCa hormone-naive at initial diagnosis. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 266 patients undergoing prostate biopsy at our institution between 2006 and 2009 was conducted. We examined associations of CVD or CAD in 133 patients with PCa diagnosis versus 133 age-matched controls. Men with incomplete data available, history of hormone therapy or chemotherapy, prostate or bladder surgery were excluded. Results: CVD was significantly linked to PCa in all cases versus controls at initial diagnosis of PCa (OR 2.42, p < 0.05). Similarly CAD was significantly related to PCa at initial diagnosis (OR 1.88, p < 0.05). Conclusions: In our study a significant relation was found between vascular damage and PCa hormone-naive at initial diagnosis. Further research should elucidate these associations in larger samples to confirm these relationships and to stabilize future prevention strategies.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of cancer research updates→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→