Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels prior to prostatectomy are not related to long-term oncologic or cardiovascular outcomes for men with prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research suggests a link between circulating levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and prostate cancer outcomes. FSH levels may also explain some of the observed differences in cardiovascular events among men treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared to GnRH agonists. This study evaluates the association between preoperative FSH and long-term cardiovascular and oncologic outcomes in a cohort of men with long follow-up after radical prostatectomy. We performed a cohort study utilizing an institutional biobank with annotated clinical data. FSH levels were measured from cryopreserved plasma and compared with sex steroids previously measured from the same samples. Differences in oncologic outcomes between tertiles of FSH levels were compared using adjusted cox regression models. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similarly assessed using hospital admission diagnostic codes. A total of 492 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 13.1 (interquartile range: 8.9-15.9) years. Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S) levels, but not other androgens, negatively correlated with FSH levels on linear regression analysis (P = 0.03). There was no association between FSH tertile and outcomes of biochemical recurrence, time to castrate-resistant prostate cancer, or time to metastasis. MACEs were identified in 50 patients (10.2%), with a mean time to first event of 8.8 years. No association with FSH tertile and occurrence of MACE was identified. Our results do not suggest that preoperative FSH levels are significantly associated with oncologic outcomes among prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy, nor do these levels appear to be predictors of long-term cardiovascular risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".