Insulin-Like Growth Factor I (IGF-I) and IGF-Binding Protein-3 in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In view of evidence indicating significant involvement of the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer, we measured serum IGF-I and IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH; n = 75) or prostatic carcinoma (CaP; n = 84). The age-matched patient populations were selected to have circulating prostate-specific antigen (PSA), the most reliable predictor of CaP, in the overlapping diagnostic gray zone range of approximately 4–10 μg/L. Of particular interest was investigation of intact, fragment, and total IGFBP-3 levels in relation to PSA, which is also a well established IGFBP-3 protease. Among the key findings were significantly higher IGF-I and intact IGFBP-3 levels in CaP vs. BPH (P < 0.001), whereas changes in fragment and total IGFBP-3 were statistically insignificant. As expected, total PSA levels were similar in the two groups of patients (P = 0.173), whereas free PSA levels were significantly lower in those with CaP (P < 0.001). IGF-I and IGFBP-3 (intact and total) correlated significantly (P = 0.024 to<0.001) and inversely (r = −0.26 to −0.35) with free PSA in BPH, but not in CaP, and no correlations were found in comparisons involving total PSA. Statistical analysis of the various markers and their combinations indicated enhanced performance of IGF-I/free PSA[ receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) = 0.728] and intact IGFBP-3/free PSA (AUC = 0.737) ratios in discriminating between BPH and CaP compared with the currently used free/total PSA ratio (AUC = 0.689). Multivariate logistic regression models confirmed the observed relationships and identified IGF-I/free PSA and intact IGFBP-3/free PSA as independent factors in predicting the presence of CaP. We conclude that increases in IGF-I and intact IGFBP-3 levels are positively associated with the presence of CaP in this group of patients with low to moderately elevated PSA, and that their measurements in relation to PSA may help improve diagnostic discrimination between BPH and prostate cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".