Effects of long‐term androgen deprivation therapy on cognitive function over 36 months in men with prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer (PC) require long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), but to the authors' knowledge, its effects on cognitive function beyond 1 year are not described. METHODS: Three groups of men aged ≥50 years who were matched based on age and education were enrolled: 77 patients with nonmetastatic PC who initiated continuous ADT, 82 patients with PC who were not receiving ADT (PC controls), and 82 healthy controls. A battery of 14 neuropsychological tests, examining 8 cognitive domains, was administered on 5 occasions over 36 months. Changes in cognitive scores over time were analyzed using 3 approaches: linear mixed effects regression, the percentage of participants per group with declines in ≥1/2 cognitive tests, and a global summary of cognitive change. RESULTS: The mean age of the study subjects was 68.9 years, with a median of 16 years of education. In mixed effects models adjusted for age and education, ADT use was not found to be associated with significant changes over time in any cognitive test compared with healthy controls. The percentage of participants declining by ≥1.5 standard deviations in ≥2 tests or ≥2 standard deviations in ≥1 tests was similar across groups. A global summary of cognitive change found no statistically significant worsening of cognitive function among ADT users compared with controls. Sensitivity analyses adjusting for duration of ADT and using multiple imputation for missing data did not materially alter the study findings. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing use of ADT for up to 36 months does not appear to be associated with cognitive decline. Cancer 2017;123:237-244. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".