Diabetes Mellitus Reduces Prostate Cancer Risk - No Function of Age at Diagnosis or Duration of Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies examining the relation between diabetes mellitus (DM) and prostate cancer risk have reported controversial findings. We examined this association by conducting a detailed meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: A comprehensive search for articles of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and bibliographies of retrieved articles published up to November, 2012 was performed. Methodological quality assessment of the trials was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scaleq and the meta-analysis was performed using STATA 12.0. Dose-response regression was conducted with SPSS 19.0. RESULTS: We included 29 studies in the meta-analysis (13 case-control studies, 16 cohort studies), and found an inverse association between DM and prostate cancer (relative risk (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-0.91). An inverse association was also observed in non-Asian populations (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.87) and population-based studies (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.91). No statistical significance was found of the association between prostate cancer risk and the duration of DM (p=0.338), and risk seemed not related with the age of DM diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested an inverse relationship between DM and prostate cancer, but without links to duration of disease or age of diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".