MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080666727 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.12115

What determines testosterone levels?

2012· article· en· W2080666727 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jun Kawakami, Premal Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestosterone (patch)Internal medicineChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is interesting as a negative study. It shows that the type of luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists and primary therapy is not significant when it comes to testosterone levels.1 This commentary focuses on the actual testosterone levels, which are clinically relevant as many patients were experiencing breakthrough levels on LHRH agonists. Chemically castrate status in terms of testosterone has been argued to be 20 ng/dL or 50 ng/dL, which converts to 0.69 nmol/L or 1.7 nmol/L.2 Current consensus is 20 ng/dL, which bilateral surgical castration typically achieves.3 The median values reported in this study for LHRH alone, radiation and surgery were 40, 37 and 36 ng/dL, or 1.4, 1.3 and 1.25 nmol/L, respectively. The interquartile ranges also suggest that most patients (75%) did not have castrate levels of testosterone. Admittedly, this study does mention testosterone was only obtained once and circumstances surrounding it were uncertain. Anti-androgen status is also not mentioned. Bicalutamide and other anti-androgens are known to elevate testosterone levels as monotherapy and may have a confounding effect on the testosterone levels reported. Most likely testosterone was measured when prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was rising on LHRH agonist and one can surmise that the ordering physician was looking for and found “testosterone escape” (a single value above 50 ng/dL or 1.7 nmol/L) in many of the patients in this study.4 Although as stated previously, perhaps 20 ng/dL should be the current definition. The importance of testosterone escape is backed by several studies. It is known anti-androgens do not help orchiectomy patients in overall survival, but do for patients on LHRH agonists.5 Breakthrough testosterone levels on medication that did not occur for surgically castrate patients would be a likely explanation. Progression-free survival in non-metastatic patients in another study was longer, the lower the testosterone level.6 In this clinical scenario of testosterone escape, standard treatment was switching LHRH agonists, adding an anti-androgen and bilateral orchiectomy. Now, a new option with LHRH antagonists arises. It has been reported to have modest results with respect to decreasing PSA, but can possibly alleviate voiding symptoms more than LHRH agonist therapy.7 Regardless, the actual testosterone level is important for patients on LHRH agonists with rising PSA. Venkateswaran and colleagues make the case that it should be checked no matter what the primary therapy.1

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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