Androgen Deprivation Therapy and the Risk of Dementia in Patients With Prostate Cancer
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Recent observational studies have associated the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with an increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease, but these studies had limitations. The objective of this study was to determine whether the use of ADT is associated with an increased risk of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, in patients with prostate cancer. Patients and Methods Using the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we assembled a cohort of 30,903 men newly diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between April 1, 1988 and April 30, 2015, and observed them until April 30, 2016. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CIs of dementia associated with the use of ADT compared with nonuse. ADT exposure was lagged by 1 year to account for delays associated with the diagnosis of dementia and to minimize reverse causality. Secondary analyses assessed whether the risk varied with cumulative duration of use and by ADT type. Results During a mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 4.3 (3.6) years, 799 patients were newly diagnosed with dementia (incidence, 6.0; 95% CI, 5.6 to 6.4) per 1,000 person-years. Compared with nonuse, ADT use was not associated with an increased risk of dementia (incidence, 7.4 v 4.4 per 1,000 person-years, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.19). In secondary analyses, cumulative duration of use ( P for heterogeneity = .78) and no single type of ADT were associated with an increased risk of dementia. Conclusion In this population-based study, the use of ADT was not associated with an increased risk of dementia. Additional studies in different settings are needed to confirm these findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it