Male circumcision and prostate cancer: A geographical analysis, meta-analysis, and cost analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Attempts to find an association between male circumcision and prostate cancer risk have produced inconsistent results. METHODS: Age-standardized prostate cancer incidence, life-expectancy, geographical region, and circumcision prevalence from 188 countries were compared using linear regression analysis. Following a systematic literature review, a meta-analysis was performed on studies meeting inclusion criteria with evaluations of between-study heterogeneity and publication bias. A cost analysis (discounted at 3% and 5% per annum) was performed using the meta-analysis's summary effect and upper confidence interval. RESULTS: =82.8%). There was no evidence of publication bias. Cost analysis found infant circumcision was prohibitively costly, returning only between 1.6¢ and 13.8¢ for each dollar expended. CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision may be a positive risk factor on geographical analysis, but not in case-case-controlled studies. Circumcision is not economically feasible for preventing 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 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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".