MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors among prostate cancer patients treated with and without androgen deprivation.

2020· article· en· W3007072416 on OpenAlexafffund
Jehonathan H. Pinthus, Bobby Shayegan, Laurence Klotz, D. Robert Siemens, Patrick Luke, Tamim Niazi, Vincent Fradet, Yves Fradet, Emmanuelle Duceppe, Luke T. Lavallée, Negareh Mousavi, Robert J. Hamilton, Ian H. Brown, Joseph L. Chin, Darin Gopaul, Philippe D. Violette, Margot K. Davis, Rajibul Mian, Sarah Karampatos, Darryl P. Leong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalGrand River HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de QuébecMcGill UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreJewish General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoNiagara Health SystemLondon Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
FundersProstate Cancer Canada
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyProstate cancerFramingham Risk ScoreCohortRisk factorInternal medicineFramingham Heart StudyDiseaseDiabetes mellitusCohort studyPopulationLogistic regressionCancerProspective cohort studyOncologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

364 Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the second most common cause of death in prostate cancer (PC) patients, yet the prevalence of CVD and its risk factors have been incompletely described in this population. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a risk factor for CVD. The objective of this study were to describe the CVD characteristics and risk factors in PC patients and the relationship between CVD risk and how ADT is used in real-world practice. Methods: RADICAL-PC (Role of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in CArdiovascular Disease – A Longitudinal Prostate Cancer Study) is an ongoing prospective cohort study. We recruited 2395 consecutive men (mean age 68 years) with newly diagnosed PC or with a plan to prescribe ADT for the first time. Cardiovascular risk was estimated by calculating Framingham risk scores. A Framingham score >17 (corresponding with a predicted 10-year CVD risk of >30%) was considered high-risk. Multivariable logistic regression was performed with ADT use as the outcome variable and CVD risk factors as the exposures of interest. Results: The prevalence of known CVD for the entire cohort was 22% and 35% had a Framingham risk score >17. Most participants (58%) were current or former smokers; 16% had diabetes; 45% had hypertension and 23% had high blood pressure but had not received a diagnosis of hypertension; 31% were obese (BMI ≥30kg/m2); 24% had low levels of physical activity. There was a positive relationship between each major cardiovascular risk factor and the use of ADT. However, after adjustment for age, education, alcohol use, BMI and time from PC diagnosis to eligibility assessment, these associations were significantly attenuated. Participants in whom ADT was planned had higher Framingham risk scores than those not intending to receive ADT. This risk was abolished after adjustment for confounders. Conclusions: One in three men with PC is at high cardiovascular risk. Men receiving ADT are a priori at higher CVD risk than PC patients whose treatment strategy does not include ADT. These differences are explained by confounding factors. Clinical trial information: NCT03127631.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207