MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396823820

Anti-androgen treatment of prostatic carcinoma may be a risk factor for development of rheumatoid arthritis.

2002· article· en· W2396823820 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Pope, M. G. Joneja, Paul Hong

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisProstate cancerInternal medicineContext (archaeology)CarcinomaRheumatoid factorOncologyRheumatologyCyproterone acetateTestosterone (patch)AndrogenCancerHormone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many rheumatic paraneoplastic syndromes. The association between prostate carcinoma and subsequent development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has not been reported. We describe 3 cases of men developing inflammatory arthritis after anti-androgen manipulation for treatment of prostate carcinoma. None had diagnoses supporting other connective tissue disease or crystal arthritis. Only one patient had a weakly positive rheumatoid factor, and another had a positive antinuclear antibody. The cases fulfilled 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA. The onset of joint symptoms was within weeks to 9 months of starting therapy to suppress testosterone [2 received leuprolide acetate (Lupron) and one cyproterone acetate (Androcur)]. Review of the literature yielded no reports of prostate carcinoma associated with paraneoplastic RA. We review the literature with respect to associations of paraneoplastic RA and prostate carcinoma and discuss published data in the context of the hypothesis of lower testosterone and increased risk of RA.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207