MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511679317 · doi:10.1002/cncr.30320

Effects of long‐term androgen deprivation therapy on cognitive function over 36 months in men with prostate cancer

2016· article· en· W2511679317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Cancer SocietyAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyProstate cancerCognitionNeuropsychologyCognitive testCognitive declineInternal medicineCancerDementiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · 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