MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197041610 · doi:10.3390/curroncol28050289

Androgen Deprivation Therapy, Hypogonadism and Cardiovascular Toxicity in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer

2021· review· en· W3197041610 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gabriela Gheorghe, Andreea Simona Hodorogea, Ana Ciobanu, Ioan Tiberiu Nanea, Andrei Cristian Dan Gheorghe

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal and reproductive studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyProstate cancerInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseOrchiectomyMyocardial infarctionRadiation therapyHeart failureAdverse effectDiseaseSudden cardiac deathTestosterone (patch)Erectile dysfunctionCardiologyCancerOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is successfully used in patients with advanced prostatic cancer, but there are many concerns about its systemic side effects, especially due to advanced age and frequent comorbidities in most patients. In patients treated with ADT there are metabolic changes involving the glycaemic control and lipid metabolism, increased thrombotic risk, an increased risk of myocardial infarction, severe arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death. Still, these adverse effects can be also due to the subsequent hypogonadism. Men with heart failure or coronary artery disease have a lower level of serum testosterone than normal men of the same age, and hypogonadism is related to higher cardiovascular mortality. Many clinical studies compared the cardiovascular effects of hypogonadism post orchiectomy or radiotherapy with those of ADT but their results are controversial. However, current data suggest that more intensive treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and closer cardiological follow-up of older patients under ADT might be beneficial. Our paper is a narrative review of the literature data in this field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicHormonal and reproductive studiesFrench-language works237,207