MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118694999 · doi:10.3747/co.v18i4.746

A Comprehensive Bone-Health Management Approach for Men with Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy

2011· article· en· W2118694999 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C.E. Lee, William D. Leslie, Piotr Czaykowski, Joel Gingerich, Marc Geirnaert, Y.-K. Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyManagement of prostate cancerBone healthQuality of life (healthcare)Narrative reviewOncologyCancerGynecologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineOsteoporosisBone mineralNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For advanced and metastatic prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (adt) is the mainstay of treatment. Awareness of the potential bone-health complications consequent to adt use is increasing. Many studies have shown that prolonged adt leads to significant bone loss and increased fracture risk that negatively affect quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines for preserving bone health in men with prostate cancer on adt vary across Canada. This paper reviews recent studies on bone health in men with prostate cancer receiving adt and the current evidence regarding bone-health monitoring and management in reference to Canadian provincial guidelines. Based on this narrative review, we provide general bone-health management recommendations for men with prostate cancer receiving adt.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207