Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian consensus meeting, held in Toronto in May 2006, represents an important initiative in sorting out much of the confusion surrounding the use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) in clinical practice. The impact of the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms study and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) are quite dramatic as they confirm that 5ARIs, a class of drugs that never gained much market share in urologic practice, have significant impact on both benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer- related outcomes. It is quite ironic that these pivotal trials, funded not by industry but by tax payers, have come to fruition at a time when finasteride is soon to be genericized in the United States. Commercial interests aside, this consensus summary provides useful information for urologists and primary care physicians. With respect to BPH-related outcomes, the 5ARIs have clearly demonstrable benefits in reducing long-term complications and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). There is little debate on this topic. The impact of 5ARIs on prostate cancer prevention remains controversial and, in my mind, these recommendations have some limitations that deserve mention. With respect to the grade and volume bias, this observation, internationally led by our group, is real, and many other centres are now reporting it. We must emphasize that these recommendations report that this bias explains the PCPT grade issue “with a high degree of confidence.” While I truly believe this is the case, a small but lingering doubt must still exist within us all. It is essentially now unprovable! Perhaps more relevant than the grade issue is the clinical significance of the prevented cancers. Indeed, in the PCPT the relative risk reduction in “for-cause” biopsies, those that mirror clinical practice, is only 10%. I believe that future pivotal trials, such as REDUCE (the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events study; dutasteride v. placebo among men with negative prostate biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen), will help us clarify some of these issues. With respect to class effect and use of 5ARIs, I believe that both 5ARIs are good agents and that there are theoretical advantages to dutasteride in cancer prevention. Further trials will bear this out. What are clinicians to do? Consider the cancer prevention properties as an added benefit to complication reduction and symptom improvement for men with large-volume BPH and LUTS. In my view, either 5ARI is appropriate. Consider primary prevention with 5-ARI in ultra-high risk men, those in whom a cancer is likely to be clinically significant (e.g., men with strong family history, African-Canadians or both). In this setting, the best evidence would support the use of finasteride.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".