Testosterone Treatment and Cardiovascular and Venous Thromboembolism Risk: What is ‘New’?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In men, testosterone (T) production declines as a function of ageing. Late-onset hypogonadism (LOH) is the most commonly used term to indicate this age-related condition. In LOH, the relative clinical significance and the potential benefit of testosterone treatment (TTh) are still the subject of strong criticisms in the scientific community. The debate is further complicated by the recent position statement of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emphasizing that, in LOH, the benefits and safety of TTh have not been fully established. Hence, the FDA required a labeling change to inform patients about a possible increased cardiovascular (CV) risk of TTh. Similar considerations were previously released by the FDA and by Health Canada concerning a TTh-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. In this review, we will summarize the available evidence concerning a possible link among TTh and CV and VTE risks. For this purpose, data derived from epidemiological studies analyzing relationships between the aforementioned risks and endogenous T levels will be analyzed. In addition, evidence deriving from interventional studies including pharmacoepidemiological and placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be examined. Our analysis shows that available data do not support an increased CV risk related to TTh. Similar considerations can be drawn for the relationship between TTh and VTE. The previously reported cases of TTh-related VTE were frequently related to a previously undiagnosed thrombophilia-hypofibrinolysis status. Hence, an anamnestic screening for thrombophilia before starting TTh is recommended, just as it is for the use of oral contraceptives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".