Screening history and risk of death from prostate cancer: a nested case–control study within the screening arm of the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the risk of death from prostate cancer (PCa) in relation to men's screening histories, i.e., screening attendance among men who were offered screening. METHODS: Men in the Finnish Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC) screening arm were invited to up to three screening rounds with the serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test at 4-year intervals during 1996-2007. Case subjects (n = 330) were men who died from PCa. Each case was matched to five controls (n = 1544) among the men who were free of PCa. Screening history was defined as (1) never/ever attended screening prior to the case diagnosis; (2) attended at the first screening round; and (3) recency of screening, calculated as the time from last screening attendance to the date of case diagnosis. The association between screening history and the risk of death from PCa was estimated by odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Having ever attended screening versus never attended was associated with a reduced risk of PCa death (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.81) and a similar association was found for those attended (versus not attended) the first screening round (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.87). The effect by time since last screen for the risk of PCa death was significantly lower 2-7 years since last screen. CONCLUSION: Among men invited to screening, subjects who attended any PSA screening during the previous 19 years had a 40% reduction in PCa mortality compared to non-screened men.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".