The cardiovascular effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in men with prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists (an emerging class of drugs to suppress testosterone synthesis in the treatment of prostate cancer) cause less adverse cardiovascular events than the more commonly use GnRH agonists. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review to identify all randomized, controlled trials in which a GnRH antagonist was compared with a GnRH agonist in men with prostate cancer. We identified 10 eligible studies including two different GnRH antagonists, degarelix (n = 1681) and relugolix (n = 734), which were compared with the GnRH agonists, leuprolide (n = 714) and goserelin (n = 600). The pooled risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) among GnRH antagonist recipients for adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality were 0.57 (0.39-0.81); 0.49 (0.25-0.96); and 0.48 (0.28-0.83), respectively. Important limitations of the included trials were their short duration of follow-up, unblinded study design and (in most of the studies) the identification of adverse cardiovascular events through safety reporting mechanisms rather than as a pre-specified outcome. There was no evidence of heterogeneity of findings among the studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent but methodologically limited data to suggest that GnRH antagonists-a relatively new class of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer-cause significantly less cardiovascular adverse effects than the more frequently used GnRH agonists.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".