MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Utility of annual screening serum testosterone level in men on surveillance for clinical stage I testicular cancer.

2017· article· en· W2601038906 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Winquist, Alexandra Rowe, Stan VanUum, D. Scott Ernst, Kylea Potvin, Maureen A. Quinn, Grace Bradish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTesticular cancerTestosterone (patch)Internal medicineOrchiectomyStage (stratigraphy)Androgen deficiencyAndrogenGynecologyReferralCancerEndocrinologyUrologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

144 Background: Testicular cancer occurs in young men and is usually cured leaving survivors with many life years at risk from long term treatment effects. Risks increase with treatment intensity and include cardiovascular disease associated with the metabolic syndrome (Haugnes 2012, de Haas 2013). Testosterone deficiency (TD) is associated with metabolic syndrome & reduced QoL (Huddart 2005). Serum testosterone levels (STLs) are also influenced by underlying testicular dysgenesis & the effects of ageing (Skakkebaek 2001, Oldenburg 2016). We added annual screening STL to our surveillance protocols in 2013 & reviewed the value of this practice. Methods: Men followed in our Testicular Surveillance Clinic from 01 Jan 2006 to 31 Dec 2015 were identified electronically & data extracted retrospectively. Men eligible for this analysis had clinical stage I (CS I) testicular cancer treated with unilateral orchiectomy alone. Outcomes of interest were STLs, Endocrinology referral (Endo) & treatment with androgen replacement therapy (ART). TD was defined by 3 cutoffs of most recent screening STL: < 8.6 nmol/L [age 20-49] (or < 6.7 nmol/L [age > 50]) (local laboratory), < 10.1 nmol/L (Huddart 2005), or < 12.1 nmol/L (EAA & EAU). Results: 77 eligible men were identified: median age 34 years (range, 15-65), seminoma/nonseminoma/mixed/other (45/27/4/1). By the 3 STL cutoffs, TD was present in 13 (16.9% [95%CI, 9.3-27.1%), 22 (28.6% [18.8-40.0%] & 37 (48.1% [36.5-59.7%]); respectively. Nine men (11.4%) were referred to Endo, 1 had morning STL pending & 1 was using OTC ART. Of 8 men assessed by Endo, 5 (6.5%) were prescribed ART. Six men had no screening STL done (3 nonadherent, 1 prostate cancer & 2 unknown). Two men were discharged from clinic with unequivocal low STL. Conclusions: Annual screening STL appears to be useful and may be necessary. 15 CS I men (19.5%) in our clinic had unequivocal TD &/or were referred to an Endo. An additional 20 men (26%) had STLs in a range associated with reduced QoL. Almost half had STLs considered suitable for ART in the presence of symptoms. Two men (2.6%) were discharged with low STLs unaddressed. Guidelines for the optimal assessment and management of men with positive screening for TD are needed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicTesticular diseases and treatments→French-language works237,207→