MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Androgen deprivation therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer and dementia risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2017· review· en· W2891943773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin T. Nead, Sumi Sinha, Paul L. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDementiaAndrogen deprivation therapyProstate cancerHazard ratioPublication biasInternal medicineSystematic reviewOncologyRelative riskConfidence intervalCancerMEDLINEDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5044 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to treat prostate cancer may be associated with an increased risk of dementia, but existing studies have shown conflicting results. Here we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of ADT in the treatment of prostate cancer with the risk of dementia. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of articles reporting the outcome of dementia among individuals with prostate cancer in those exposed to ADT versus a lesser-exposed comparison group (e.g. no ADT, intermittent ADT) using the PRISMA statement guidelines. Two authors independently carried out searches in PubMed (1966–present), Web of Science (1945–present), Embase (1966–present), and PsycINFO (1806–present). The search was undertaken December 4th, 2016. We assessed the validity of each study per the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria. We meta-analyzed studies reporting an effect estimate and controlling for confounding.Random- or fixed-effects meta-analytic models were used in the presence or absence of heterogeneity, respectively, per the I2statistic. Small study effects were evaluated using Egger and Begg’s tests. Results: Nine studies were included in the systematic review. Seven studies reported an adjusted effect estimate for dementia risk. A random-effects meta-analysis of studies reporting any dementia outcome, which included 50,541 individuals, showed an increased risk of dementia among ADT users (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–2.00; p = 0.02). We separately meta-analyzed studies reporting all-cause dementia (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.05–2.02; p < 0.001) and Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.99–1.57; p = 0.06). The I2statistic to evaluate the proportion of heterogeneity due to study variation was 76% (95% CI, 47–89; p < 0.001) for the primary analysis. There was no evidence of bias from small study effects (Egger, p = 0.19; Begg, p = 1.00). Conclusions: The currently available combined evidence suggests that ADT in the treatment of prostate cancer may be associated with an increased risk of dementia. The potential for neurocognitive deficits secondary to ADT should be discussed with patients and evaluated prospectively.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.038
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.418
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207