Disseminated intravascular coagulation and PC-SPES: a case report and literature review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PC-SPES is a herbal remedy gaining acceptance amongst prostate cancer patients and health care providers due to credible laboratory and clinical studies. However, PC-SPES has not been assessed in the standard rigorous approval process mandated for conventional agents. OBJECTIVES: To present a case of a patient with prostate cancer who, while using PC-SPES, developed disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). A review of the literature was conducted to determine if there is a relationship between PC-SPES and hemorrhagic disorders. METHODS: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (1966-December 2000) and the Cochrane Collaboration's database. RESULTS: There are 116 clinical and laboratory based studies of PC-SPES published to date. There are no randomized controlled trials. Clinical studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels within 6 weeks. Improved quality-of-life, reduction in the volume of tumor deposits and reduction in analgesic use has been demonstrated in hormone refractory patients. Laboratory studies suggest that the beneficial effects of PC-SPES are unrelated to physiologic estrogens. However, PC-SPES has a side-effect profile similar to diethylstilbestrol. There is data demonstrating a <5% risk of thromboembolic events, but this is the first report of DIC. CONCLUSION: The study of PC-SPES is in its infancy. This case may serve as a cautionary note to health care providers and patients regarding herbal remedies. Those using PC-SPES should have an increased level of surveillance for bleeding disorders.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".