Effect of a Low Glycemic Index Diet on Prostate Specific Antigen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Epidemiological studies have shown an association between consumption of a low glycemic index (GI) diet with reduced prostate cancer risk; however, clinical trials are lacking. Objective To determine the effect of a low GI diet compared to a control, high fiber, diet on serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, a biomarker of prostate carcinoma. Methods In a randomized parallel trial, men with type 2 diabetes were assigned to either a low GI or a high fiber diet for 6 months. PSA levels were assessed in a secondary analysis from blood samples obtained at baseline and end of study. Results Of the 100 completers, 84 men had PSA levels available at baseline and end of study. Overall, the mean baseline PSA level was 2.10 + 0.59 ng/mL which decreased by 0.08 + 0.11 ng/mL on the low GI diet and by 0.03 + 0.12 ng/mL on the control diet over the 6 months. No treatment differences were observed (P>0.05). Limitations This study was not appropriately powered for the outcomes measured in this secondary analysis. Conclusion Low GI diets have been associated with decreased prostate cancer risk; however, future trials should study the effects on PSA and other markers of prostate cancer in higher risk populations. Funding Barilla
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".