Androgen Deprivation Therapy and the Risk of Anemia in Men with Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer may be associated with an increased risk of anemia, but the evidence remains limited. This study aimed to determine if androgen deprivation is associated with increased risk of anemia in patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics repository. The cohort consisted of 10,364 men newly diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer between 1 April 1998 and 30 September 2015. We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for anemia (hemoglobin <130 g/L) associated with current and past use of androgen deprivation therapy, compared with nonuse. RESULTS: There were 3,651 incident anemia events during 31,574 person-years of follow-up (rate: 11.6/100 person-years). Current androgen deprivation therapy use was associated with a nearly three-fold increased hazard of anemia, compared with nonuse (23.5 vs. 5.9 per 100 person-years, respectively; HR: 2.90, 95% CI: 2.67, 3.16). The HR was elevated in the first 6 months of use (HR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.95, 2.48) and continued to be elevated with longer durations of use. Past androgen deprivation therapy use was associated with a lower estimate (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.43), which returned closer to the null ≥25 months after treatment discontinuation (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: The use of androgen deprivation therapy is associated with increased risk of anemia, which reverses upon treatment discontinuation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".