Inflammatory bowel disease and prostate cancer risk: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), focussing on ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) separately.Methods: A systemic search was carried out using PubMed and Web of Science databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We retrieved a total of 349 articles. All the articles were in the English language and investigated the incidence of PCa in patients with IBD.Results: Nine studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 205 037 men. Two studies reported an increase in the risk of PCa in men with IBD in general. Five other studies reported an increased risk of PCa in men with UC or with CD specifically. On the other hand, two studies reported a decreased risk of PCa in patients with UC and patients with IBD treated with aminosalicylates.Conclusions: While men with UC appear to have higher risk of developing PCa, data on patients with CD are inconclusive. Therefore, patients with UC may benefit from earlier PCa screening. Our findings confirm a complex interplay between IBD and PCa, including factors such as genetic predisposition, systemic inflammation and treatment effects. The modulatory effect of treatment strategies for IBD on the development and progression of PCa might be of clinical significance.Abbreviations: CD: Crohn’s disease; CRP: C- reactive protein; FOLH1: folate hydrolase 1; GIT: gastrointestinal tract; IBD: inflammatory bowel disease; IL-6: interleukin 6; NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa Scale; PCa: prostate cancer; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PSMA: prostate-specific membrane antigen; UC: ulcerative colitis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".