Impact of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Self-Reported Cognitive Function in Men with Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although androgen deprivation therapy is widely used to treat prostate cancer, its effects on cognitive function are unclear. To our knowledge no prior report has examined the impact of androgen deprivation therapy on self-reported cognitive function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three groups of men 50 years old or older who were matched on age and education were enrolled in the study, including 81 with prostate cancer starting on continuous androgen deprivation therapy, 84 controls with prostate cancer not receiving androgen deprivation therapy and 85 healthy controls. Two scales from the FACT-Cog (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive subscale) version 3 were used to assess self-reported cognitive function. Changes in cognitive scores with time were analyzed by 2 approaches, including 1) multivariable regression and 2) calculation of the proportion of subjects per group with a decrease of 1 SD or more. Multivariable regression was applied to assess predictors of a decline in self-reported cognitive function. We also examined relationships between the FACT-Cog and a neuropsychological battery of 15 tests. RESULTS: Mean participant age was 69 years (range 50 to 87). The mean educational level was 15 years (range 8 to 24). FACT-Cog scores were similar at baseline across the cohorts. Neither analytical approach revealed that androgen deprivation therapy was associated with changes in self-reported cognitive function on either FACT-Cog scale. Mood and fatigue correlated with changes in self-reported cognitive function. The relationship between self-reported and objective cognitive measures was weak (maximum Spearman correlation coefficient 0.14) and only 2 of 30 correlations were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy were not associated with self-reported cognitive function changes in older men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".