Rise in Prostate-Specific Antigen in Men with Untreated Low-Grade Prostate Cancer Is Slower During Spring-Summer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test the hypothesis that the rate of rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is slower during the spring-summer than during the rest of the year, we used PSA data from a prospective single-arm cohort study of men who had been followed to characterize a watchful observation protocol with selective delayed intervention for clinically localized, low-to-intermediate grade prostate adenocarcinoma. The rate of PSA increase was calculated as the visit-to-visit slope of log (PSA) against time, from 1 calendar-quarter visit to the next. The nonparametric Friedman test confirmed differences in rate of PSA rise among the calendar quarters (P = 0.041). Post hoc analysis showed the rate of PSA increase during Q2 was significantly slower than in each one of the other calendar quarters (Q1 versus Q2, P = 0.025; Q3 versus Q2, P = 0.002; Q4 versus Q2, P = 0.013), with no differences among quarters Q1, Q3, and Q4. These results are consistent with the vitamin D hypothesis that the higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels associated with spring and summer have a desirable effect on prostate biology. The therapeutic implication is that vitamin D supplementation in the range of 2000 IU/d, a dose comparable to the effect of summer, can benefit men monitored for rising PSA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".