The relationship between adiposity and gleason score in men with localized prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the relationship between body mass index (BMI) at the time of cancer diagnosis and malignant phenotype as measured by Gleason score. METHODS: This was a population-based cross-sectional study conducted on 1,096 prostate cancer patients treated for cure in Ontario, Canada between 1990 and 1998. An electronic-linked data set was enhanced by retrospective chart review. BMI was categorized as: normal (BMI <25.0), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9), and obese (BMI ≥30). We also investigated the role of diabetic status. Gleason scores were categorized as: 2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10. We assessed the effect modification by patient age. RESULTS: BMI was not associated with Gleason score; 9.7% of those with normal BMI had a Gleason score ≥8, and 9.4% fell into this Gleason category in both the overweight and obese groups (P = 0.73). 11.7% of diabetics had a Gleason score ≥8 compared to 9.3% in the non-diabetic group (P = 0.79). Both of these results persisted in a multivariate analysis controlling for age and diagnosis year. When stratified by age, only the Gleason score distribution in the youngest cohort (50- to 59-year olds) indicated higher Gleason scores in the obese group, with marginally significant results (P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: With a possible exception in younger men, elevated BMI at the time of diagnosis does not appear to be associated with aspects of aggressive behavior associated with Gleason grade. The effect of adiposity on prostate cancer outcome is complex, requiring further study that includes attention to factors such as length of exposure, concomitant co-morbidities, and ethnicity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".