MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparision of the risk of cardiovascular events and death in patients treated with degarelix compared with LHRH agonists.

2013· article· en· W2590660342 on OpenAlexaff
Peter C. Albertsen, Jan Nilsson, Laurence Klotz, Heather Payne, Egbert van der Meulen, Bo‐Eric Persson, Tine Kold Olesen, Joshua A. Beckman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionProstate cancerProportional hazards modelHazard ratioCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

42 Background: LHRH agonists are used to treat patients (pts) with advanced prostate cancer and have been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and related deaths. Degarelix is a GnRH antagonist that appears to mitigate this risk. Methods: Results were pooled from 2328 pts participating in 6 prospective randomised trials. Most pts (n=1,686) received 1 year of GnRH antagonist or LHRH agonist treatment; the remainder (n=642) had 3–7 months’ treatment. Data were classified based on the MedDRA system and analysed using Kaplan Meier plots and a Cox proportional hazard model. Event analysis was based on death from any cause or CV event defined as arterial embolic/thrombotic; haemorrhagic or ischemic cerebrovascular; myocardial infarction or other ischemic heart disease. High risk pts were defined as men with a baseline CV disease (CVD) history. Results: Treatment groups (GnRH antagonist, n=1,491 [degarelix]; LHRH agonist, n=837 [goserelin, n=458; leuprolide, n=379]) were balanced for baseline characteristics and CVD history (31% vs. 29%). Characteristics associated with CVD (e.g. statin medication, elevated blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol >6.2 mmol/L) were similar between groups. The risk of a CV event or death was significantly lower in pts receiving degarelix during the first year of treatment (see Table). In pts with baseline CVD the findings remained significant. In pts with no baseline CVD, there was no difference in subsequent CVD events or death in either group. In analysis by time to CV event only in all pts and pts with baseline CVD (see Table), men receiving GnRH antagonist had a significantly lower risk of CV events. Conclusions: In all pts treated with a GnRH antagonist (degarelix) risk of a CV event or death was significantly lower than in pts receiving an LHRH agonist over a treatment period of up to 1 year. In pts with baseline CVD, risk reduction remained significant at ~50%. [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→