Androgen therapy: testing before prescribing and monitoring during therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent to which biochemical testing is used to diagnose androgen deficiency before initiating treatment and to learn whether recommendations for clinical monitoring of men taking androgen therapy are being followed. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Winnipeg, Man. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 902 men who filled at least 2 prescriptions for androgen therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether men had had baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and testosterone testing before initiation of therapy and whether men had been monitored during the first year of treatment. RESULTS: Of the 902 men who filled first-time prescriptions during the study period, only 475 (52.7%) had ever had PSA or testosterone tests. Before starting therapy, 315 men (34.9%) had had PSA tests, and 152 men (16.9%) had had testosterone tests. Less than 1% of the entire sample had had 3 or more tests during the year following initiation of therapy. CONCLUSION: Indications for androgen therapy in this population appear to be based on clinical symptoms rather than on demonstrated biochemical androgen deficiency. Recommendations for clinical monitoring of men taking androgen therapy are not followed consistently.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".