MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2081390314 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.358

The effects of cigarette smoking on prostate-specific antigen in two different age groups

2013· article· en· W2081390314 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gökhan Koç, K. Turgay Akgül, Yüksel Yılmaz, Alper Dirik

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate-specific antigenAge groupsCigarette smokingProstateSignificant differenceRectal examinationProstate cancerInternal medicineGroup BUrologyGynecologyDemographyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We investigate the effects of cigarette smoking on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) using 2 different age groups. METHODS: The study was carried out between January 2007 and October 2011 with men; the 2 sets of age groups were: 25 to 35 years and 50 to 70 years old. The participants were divided into 4 groups. Of the 25 to 35 age range, smokers were Group 1, and non-smokers were Group 2; of the 50 to 70 age range, smokers were Group 3 and non-smokers Group 4. In addition, for the 50 to 70 age group, the International Prostate Symptom Score was completed, digital rectal examination was performed, and transabdominal prostate volume was measured. We wanted to see whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels showed a difference between the 2 age groups. RESULTS: There were 114 patients in Group 1, 82 in Group 2, 90 in Group 3, and 102 in Group 4. The mean PSA level was 0.7 ± 0.28 ng/mL for Group 1, and 0.6 ± 0.27 ng/mL for Group 2 (p = 0.27), and there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. The mean PSA was 2.5 ± 1.8 ng/mL for Group 3, and 2.1 ± 2.0 ng/mL (p = 0.59) for Group 4, and there was no statistically significant difference between the these 2 age groups. INTERPRETATION: Cigarette smoking effects various hormone levels. Different from previous studies, the PSA level was higher in smokers compared to nonsmokers, although it was not statistically significant. Our study is limited by the small numbers in our study groups and the lack of PSA velocity data.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→