Testosterone replacement for fatigue in male hypogonadic patients with advanced cancer: A preliminary double-blind placebo-controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e19643 Background: Hypogonadism affects two thirds of men with advanced cancer. Uncontrolled studies show fatigue, anorexia, depression,and insomnia are associated with low testosterone in men with cancer. Testosterone replacement improves quality of life and diminishes fatigue in patients with non-cancer conditions. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of testosterone replacement on fatigue in hypogonadal males with advanced cancer, by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F)at day 29. Methods: Randomized, double-blinded placebo controlled at two centers. Clinic outpatients with advanced cancer, bioavailable testosterone (BT) <70ng/dL, hemoglobin>9g/dL, and moderate to severe fatigue assessed by a score >3/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were eligible.Contraindications to testosterone therapy or other causes of fatigue such as hypothyroidism, hypercalcemia, or chronic kidney disease excluded subjects. Weight-based intra-muscular testosterone or a sesame seed oil placebo administered every 14 days to achieve a BT level 70-270ng/dL. Initial sample size was for fifty evaluable patients per group. One-sided t test was used to analyze differences in FACIT scores between arms. Results: Accrual was slower than anticipated with a final total of 43 eligible males randomized to testosterone(19) or placebo(24). Neither age nor site was statistically significant (<0.05) between arms. 14 placebo and 12 testosterone treated patients were evaluable for the primary outcome.No statistically significant difference was found for FACIT-F total scores between arms, with a trend for testosterone to improve scores (-5.5±19 for placebo, 3.9±14 for testosterone, p=0.09) using a one-sided t test. Adverse events were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes of ESAS scores, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, hand-grip or 6 minute walk. Conclusions: Testosterone replacement in hypogonadal male patients with advanced cancer had a trend to improve fatigue and quality of life in this preliminary trial.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".