The effect of warfarin use on clinical stage and histological grade of prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prolonged warfarin use may decrease the risk of prostate cancer. We aimed to assess the effect of warfarin on histological grade and clinical stage of prostate cancer at diagnosis. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective population-based cohort study of men older than 50 years of age diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1985 and 2002 and registered with the Saskatchewan Cancer Registry. We compared a composite score of histological grade and clinical stage of prostate cancer at diagnosis according to warfarin use in the 5 years preceding the diagnosis of prostate cancer. RESULTS: Compared with non-users, men with at least 2 years of cumulative warfarin use in the 5 year period preceding the diagnosis of prostate cancer were at a lower risk of a poor prognosis composite score at the time of their prostate cancer diagnosis (OR 0.40, 95%CI (0.19-0.83)), and when intermediate and poor prognosis scores were combined, a similar estimate of association was observed (OR 0.55, 95%CI (0.33-0.91)), adjusted for age at diagnosis and year of diagnosis. However, an increased risk of poor prognosis disease was observed with 4 years of cumulative warfarin use compared to never use (OR 2.2, 95%CI (1.03-4.81)). CONCLUSIONS: There is a suggestion that at least 2 years of warfarin use is associated with a more favourable prognosis but that extended duration of use beyond 2 years may be associated with poor prognosis disease. Further investigation with a more complete assessment of confounders and that addresses potential detection biases is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".