MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102818606 · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.29.8091

Impact of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy on Physical Function and Quality of Life in Men With Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer

2010· article· en· W2102818606 on OpenAlexaff
Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Henriette Breunis, Narhari Timilshina, Calvin F. Johnston, George Tomlinson, Ian F. Tannock, Murray Krahn, Neil Fleshner, Padraig Warde, S. Duff Canning, Lawrence Klotz, Gary Naglie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyProstate cancerGrip strengthQuality of life (healthcare)Prospective cohort studyCohortInternal medicinePhysical therapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This prospective longitudinal study evaluated the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on objective and self-reported physical function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PC) starting continuous ADT were enrolled in this matched cohort study. Physical function was assessed with the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), grip strength, and the timed-up-and-go (TUG) test, representing endurance and upper and lower extremity strength, respectively. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. Subjects were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Two control groups (PC without ADT; no PC), matched on age, education, and baseline function were enrolled. Mixed effects regression models were fitted, adjusting for baseline covariates. RESULTS: We enrolled 87 patients on ADT, 86 PC controls, and 86 healthy controls; groups were similar in age (mean, 69.1 years; range, 50 to 87) and physical function. The 6MWT distance remained stable in the ADT group (P = .96) but improved in both control groups (P < .05). Grip strength declined in the ADT group (P = .04), remained stable in PC controls (P = .31), and improved in healthy controls (P = .008). TUG scores remained stable over time and across groups (P > .10). The SF-36 physical function summary score declined in the ADT group (P < .001), but increased in both control groups (P < .001). Negative effects on outcomes were observed within 3 months of starting ADT and were generally independent of age. CONCLUSION: Endurance, upper extremity strength, and physical components of QOL are affected within 3 months of starting ADT. Up-front exercise interventions to counteract these losses are 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations183
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207