Prostate cancer in young men: An emerging young adult and older adolescent challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent observations suggest that prostate cancer is an increasing disease among older adolescents and young adults. METHODS: Incidence, mortality, and survival data were obtained from the US National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Global Burden of Disease database. RESULTS: Worldwide, the incidence of prostate cancer has increased in all groups between ages 15 and 40 years and increased globally at a steady rate averaging 2% per year since 1990 (P < .01). In the United States, this age group was >6 times more likely than older men to have distant disease at diagnosis. Stage for stage, their survival rate improved less than in older men. Whereas the overall 5-year relative survival rate in the United States for men diagnosed between ages 40 and 80 years was between 95% and 100%, it was 30% in those aged 15 to 24 years, 50% in those aged 20 to 29 years, and 80% in those aged 25 to 34 years. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer in older adolescent and young adult men has increased in most countries. There is some evidence that this may be caused in part by underdiagnosis, prostate-specific antigen screening, and overdiagnosis. It also may be caused by trends in obesity, physical inactivity, HPV infection, substance exposure, environmental carcinogens, and/or referral patterns. How the biology of these cancers differs from that in older men and how the etiologies vary from country to country remain to be determined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".