MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290464829 · doi:10.1177/1756287215617872

Androgen deprivation therapy and cardiovascular disease: what is the linking mechanism?

2015· review· en· W2290464829 on OpenAlexaff
Piotr Zareba, Wilhelmina Duivenvoorden, Darryl P. Leong, Jehonathan H. Pinthus

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Urology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsJuravinski HospitalPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyProstate cancerMechanism (biology)DiseaseAdverse effectObservational studyHormonal therapyAndrogenIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBioinformaticsOncologyHormoneCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past decade has brought increased awareness of the potential adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with prostate cancer. Arguably the most important and controversial of these is the increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although multiple observational studies have shown that men treated with ADT are at increased risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, our understanding of the biological mechanisms that might underlie this phenomenon is still evolving. In this review, we discuss some of the mechanisms that have been proposed to date, including ADT-induced metabolic changes that promote the development and progression of atherosclerotic plaques as well as direct local effects of hormonal factors on plaque growth, rupture and thrombosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Advances in UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207