Intermittent versus Continuous Androgen Suppression Therapy: Do We Have Consensus Yet?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been a cornerstone in the management of advanced prostate cancer for more than 50 years, but several aspects of the therapy remain controversial. Research since the mid-1980s has looked at the use of intermittent androgen suppression (IAS) as a way to reduce the side effects and costs of continuous androgen suppression. During that same time, testing for prostate-specific antigen resulted in forward stage migration both at diagnosis and at the time of treatment initiation. Earlier treatment has led to prolonged periods of ADT and increasing recognition of the resultant metabolic complications. With preclinical evidence suggesting a potential benefit for ias in terms of time to androgen independence, with phase II and III studies producing optimistic results, and with the potential for reductions in cost and complications, ias has become a popular modality of therapy around the globe. Large prospective randomized studies, currently ongoing, will ultimately determine the legitimate place of IAS in the treatment of prostate cancer.
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 | 0.055 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".