Geographic Differences in Baseline Prostate Inflammation and Relationship with Subsequent Prostate Cancer Risk: Results from the Multinational REDUCE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Prostate cancer incidence rates vary 25-fold worldwide. Differences in PSA screening are largely, but not entirely, responsible. We examined geographic differences in prevalence of histologic prostate inflammation and subsequent prostate cancer risk. Methods: Seven thousand nonHispanic white men were enrolled in the REduction by DUtasteride of prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) trial from Europe (n = 4,644), North America (n = 1,746), South America (n = 466), and Australia/New Zealand (n = 144). Histologic inflammation in baseline negative prostate biopsies was classified as chronic (lymphocytes/macrophages) or acute (neutrophils). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between region and prostate inflammation, and between region and prostate cancer risk at 2-year biopsy. Results: Prevalence of prostate inflammation varied across region, with broadly similar patterns for acute and chronic inflammation. Relative to Europe, prevalence of acute inflammation was higher in North America [odds ratio (OR), 1.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.51–2.08] and Australia/New Zealand (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.40–3.06). Men from these regions had lower prostate cancer risk than Europeans at biopsy. Among North Americans, prevalence of acute inflammation was higher in Canada versus the United States (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.07–1.83), but prostate cancer risk did not differ between these regions. Among Europeans, prevalence of acute inflammation was lower in Northern and Eastern (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65–0.97 and OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45–0.87, respectively), relative to Western Europe, and these men had higher prostate cancer risk at biopsy. Conclusions: Prevalence of histologic prostate inflammation varied by region. Geographic differences in prostate inflammation tracked inversely with geographic differences in prostate cancer risk. Impact: Characterization of premalignant prostate biology and the relationship with subsequent prostate cancer risk could inform prostate cancer prevention efforts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(7); 783–9. ©2018 AACR.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".