The current status of intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) therapy for prostate cancer: putting IAD under the spotlight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) is one approach to hormonal therapy for prostate cancer that has been developed with the aim of minimizing the negative effects of therapy while maximizing the clinical benefits and the patient's quality of life (QoL). It can be used in any clinical situation where continuous AD (CAD) treatment could be applied. IAD is a cyclic therapy consisting of on-treatment periods followed by observation periods, known as off-treatment periods or intervals (OTIs), and the response to therapy, or occurrence of disease progression, is monitored by measuring the patient's prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. The on-treatment period is generally fixed, normally lasting for 6-9 months or in some protocols until a PSA nadir of <4 ng/mL is reached. By contrast, the OTI is variable and treatment is re-instituted depending on the patient's PSA level; however, the exact trigger point is chosen empirically. The potential advantages of IAD over CAD therapy are an improved QoL, a prolonged period of androgen dependence, a reduced incidence of the side-effects normally associated with AD therapy, and a decrease in the cost of care. Results from phase II clinical studies of IAD have shown that it has good acceptance and feasibility. QoL improves during the OTIs, there is reduced toxicity, and a positive affect on bone density compared with CAD therapy. In these studies IAD appeared to have no negative effects on time to progression or survival. Further investigations of IAD are ongoing in randomized, controlled, phase III trials in the USA, Canada and Europe. Most of these studies are not yet mature and final results are awaited; however, interim analyses from some studies suggest IAD and CAD therapy are equally effective in terms of progression-free survival.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".