Age-specific reference ranges for prostate specific antigen in 16222 Chinese men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the PSA level of 16 222 asymptematic men in Shenzhen who came from different areas of China,in order to find out the PSA levels of Chinese men.Methods: Serum samples of 16 222 men who came to Peking University Shenzhen Hospital for health examination were collec-ted,all of whom had no symptoms.Their serum PSA levels were measured with MEIA with ILMA instrument.Results: The mean PSA level of the 16 222 men in our research was 0.986 μg/L,and the stan-dard deviation was 1.190.The 95% percentile was 2.375 μg/L.Of all the cases,the 95% percentile of 15 498 was lower than 2.5 μg/L,about 95.472%;that of 699 was between 2.5-10.0 μg/L,about 4.306%;And if took 4.0 μg/L as reference value,that of 15 948 cases was below 4.0 μg/L,about 98.244%;that of 249 was between 4.0-10.0 μg/L,about 1.534%;That of only 36 cases was greater than 10.0 μg/L,about 0.222%;The 95% percentiles of the different age groups were:10-19 years 0-1.067 μg/L;20-29 years 0-1.818 μg/L;30-39 years 0-1.914 μg/L;40-49 years 0-2.001 μg/L;50-59 years 0-2.900 μg/L;60-69 years 0-5.862 μg/L;70-79 years 0-8.536 μg/L;elder than 80 years 0-12.869 μg/L;There were statistic differences between thedifferent age groups.Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that the mean value of PSA levels of Chinese men is 0.986 μg/L at present stage,and the 95% percentile is 2.375 g/L.Our PSA levels of each age group are different from Oesterling's reference values which are commonly accepted in the world.The PSA level of Chinese men who are under 60 years is lower than that of Euramericans,while the PSA level of Chinese men who are above 60 years is higher than that of Euramericans.This shows that for the men who are under 60 the reference value should be 2.5 μg/L,while for the men who are above 60,we could still use 4 μg/L as reference value.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".