5-Alpha reductase inhibitors in active surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Active surveillance is now one of the recommended treatment options for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, about 10-30% of men on active surveillance will progress and require definitive therapy. In this review, we examine the role of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) in secondary prevention among men with low-risk PCa who opted to be managed by active surveillance. RECENT FINDINGS: Three retrospective studies and one randomized controlled trial have evaluated the role of 5-ARIs in preventing clinical progression among men followed by active surveillance. These studies largely support the role of 5-ARIs for secondary chemoprevention, although the drugs do not have an indication for this setting. SUMMARY: 5-ARIs have been shown to play an important role in preventing clinical progression among men with low-risk PCa on active surveillance. However, in light of the US Food and Drug Administration recommendation against 5-ARIs for primary chemoprevention, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Patients should be made aware of this warning label before starting the drug.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".