MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pioglitazone and the risk of prostate cancer.

2016· article· en· W2889980037 on OpenAlexaff
Adi J. Klil‐Drori, Hui Yin, Oriana Hoi Yun Yu, Michaël Pollak, Laurent Azoulay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPioglitazoneMedicineProportional hazards modelHazard ratioThiazolidinedioneProstate cancerInternal medicineCumulative incidenceConfidence intervalCumulative doseCohortOncologyRosiglitazoneCancerDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16574 Background: Data from recent studies have associated the use of pioglitazone, an antidiabetic drug of the thiazolidinedione (TZD) class, with an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa), but the evidence remains limited. Additional studies are needed to examine this possible association. Methods: Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified all male patients initiating an antidiabetic drug between 2000 and 2013; patients were followed through 2014. The use of pioglitazone was treated as a time-varying variable, lagged by one year for latency purposes. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of PCa associated with the use of pioglitazone, compared with non-TZD use. Secondary analyses were conducted to assess the association by tertile categories of cumulative duration and cumulative dose. Results: The cohort included 81,206 patients, of whom 1344 were newly-diagnosed with PCa (rate: 332/100,000 person-years). The use of pioglitazone was not associated with an overall increased risk of PCa (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.90-1.34). In secondary analyses, non-linear trends were observed with cumulative duration and cumulative dose (Table). In the latter, the second tertile was associated with a significant increased risk of PCa (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.18-2.22), whereas the third tertile was associated with a decreased risk (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26-0.81). Conclusions: The use of pioglitazone was not associated with an overall increased risk of PCa, and the inconsistent duration- and dose-response relationships suggest a non-causal relationship. Hazard ratios for pioglitazone and prostate cancer risk by cumulative duration and dose. Pioglitazone use category Cumulative dura tion (days) Adjusted HR (95% CI) Cumulative dose (mg) Adjusted HR (95% CI) Tertile 1 1-480 1.24 (0.87- 1.77) 1-11,220 1.17 (0.82- 1.68) Tertile 2 481-1035 1.36 (0.96- 1.92) 11,221- 27,945 1.62 (1.18- 2.22) Tertile 3 ≥ 1036 0.65 (0.40- 1.04) ≥ 27,946 0.45 (0.26- 0.81)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207