Is physical function affected by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with non-metastatic prostate cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4615 Background: Although prolonged use ofADT is hypothesized to adversely affect physical function, only a few small studies have examined this relationship and it remains unclear if self-reported weakness represents a decline in actual physical performance or is related to fatigue. Loss of physical function may be particularly important to older men who already have limited functional reserves. Methods: Men age 50 or older with non-metastatic prostate cancer who were starting continuous ADT were enrolled in this prospective longitudinal study. Physical function was tested using a Jamar dynamometer (grip strength), the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and the six-minute walk test (6MWT), representing upper extremity strength, lower extremity strength, and endurance, respectively. Assessments were done at baseline (prior to ADT), 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Results: 42 patients on ADT have been enrolled to date (mean age 74.8 y). There was a gradual but steady decline in grip strength from baseline (39.2 kg) to 3 months (38.1 kg), 6 months (37.9 kg), and 12 months (35.3 kg) (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). On average, patients took 7.3 seconds to complete the TUG and walked 1507 feet during the 6MWT at baseline. TUG and 6MWT scores did not worsen over time (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Preliminary data suggest that 3–12 months of ADT is associated with worsening upper extremity strength but lower extremity strength and endurance are relatively unaffected. A larger sample size is needed to determine if all aspects of physical function or only upper extremity strength deteriorate with ADT use. Additionally, most patients in our study reported excellent health and functional status at baseline and our results may not adequately reflect the impact of ADT in more frail older men. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".