SCREENING WITH PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN AND METASTATIC PROSTATE CANCER RISK: A POPULATION BASED CASE-CONTROL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Screening of asymptomatic men with prostate specific antigen (PSA) remains a controversial issue. There is limited evidence that screening is effective in reducing mortality from prostate cancer. In the current study we determined if screening with PSA reduces the risk of metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a population based case-control study among the residents of Metropolitan Toronto and 5 surrounding counties in Ontario, Canada. Data were obtained from 236 cases of metastatic prostate cancer and 462 controls randomly sampled from the source population and frequency matched to cases for age and area of residence. History of PSA testing, digital rectal examination, symptoms and other data were obtained from medical records and a self-administered questionnaire. The association between PSA screening and metastatic prostate cancer was measured by the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio stratified by exposure observation time and other potential confounding factors. RESULTS: In asymptomatic men, the frequency of PSA screening as determined from medical records was significantly lower among the cases compared with the controls (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.93). The odds ratio was 0.52 (0.28 to 0.98) in men 45 to 59 years old and 0.67 (0.41 to 1.09) in those 60 to 84 years old. CONCLUSIONS: In this case-control study screening of asymptomatic men with PSA was associated with a significantly reduced risk of metastatic prostate cancer. The results need to be confirmed in randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".