Elevated C‐Peptides, Abdominal Obesity, and Abnormal Adipokine Profile are Associated With Higher Gleason Scores in Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer development is associated with numerous lifestyle factors (i.e., physical activity, nutrition intake) and metabolic perturbations. These factors have been studied independently; here, we used an integrative approach to characterize these lifestyle and metabolic parameters in men undergoing diagnostic prostate biopsies. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 51 consecutive men for body composition, metabolic factors including glucose- and lipid-related measures, as well as lifestyle factors prior to prostate biopsy. Evaluations were performed in a blinded manner and were subsequently related to biopsy outcomes for: (i) presence or absence of cancer; and (ii) where cancer was present, Gleason score. RESULTS: Serum C-peptide concentrations were significantly greater in participants with Gleason scores ≥4 + 3 (2.8 ± 1.1 ng/ml) compared to those with Gleason 3 + 3 (1.4 ± 0.6 ng/ml) or Gleason 3 + 4 (1.3 ± 0.8 ng/ml, P = 0.002), suggesting greater insulin secretion despite lack of differences in fasting glucose concentrations. Central adiposity, measured by waist circumference, was significantly greater in participants with Gleason ≥4 + 3 (110.1 ± 7.4 cm) compared to those with Gleason 3 + 4 (102.0 ± 9.5 cm, P = 0.028). Men with Gleason ≥4 + 3 also had significantly greater leptin concentrations than those with lower Gleason scores (Gleason ≥4 + 3: 15.6 ± 3.3 ng/ml vs. Gleason 3 + 4: 8.1 ± 8.1 ng/ml, P < 0.05) and leptin:adiponectin ratio (Gleason ≥4 + 3: 9.7 ± 6.1 AU, Gleason 3 + 4: 2.9 ± 3.2, Gleason 3 + 3: 2.4 ± 2.1 AU, P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: We profiled a cluster of obesity-related metabolic perturbations (C-peptide, central adiposity, leptin, and leptin:adiponectin ratios) which may associate with more aggressive prostate cancer histology. Prostate 77:211-221, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".